History of Western Science, A

Rating:
Summary: Not for the philistines
Review: Alioto's history of Western Science is simply a fantastic book. Not only is it extremely well-written, but it manages to cover in a most lucid manner erudite subjects from the ancient world to the present.

It is a tragic (and perhaps true) indictment of the educational system of the USA that this book is considered (by many) too intellectually advanced for the general reader.

What more can be said? If you are looking for a simple read which will suffice for an afternoon's entertainment then this book is not for you. If, however, one is interested in a book of the history and philosophy of science that will challange the reader, then this is a book to be read and re-read periodically as one's intellectual capacity grows.

By all means, however, avoid the first edition of this book which is certainly inferior. The first edition reflects to a great degree the views of the publisher rather than the writer.

Rating:
Summary: Chip on his shoulder
Review: It seems that Anthony M. Alioto tryed to write a text about the history of scince, and yet it turns out to be a man whinning and complaining about past events he can not confirm for his readers. It seems groups in the past treated science not the way Mr. Alioto seems fit. Groups in the past that have really done for the advancements of the sciences are referred to in dark lights, subject to Mr. Alioto's unsubstantiated biases.

Rating:
Summary: Disappointing
Review: The positive: This is a reasonably (but obviously not completely) comprehensive work. Most of the expected names and ideas, along with lesser lights, are covered.

The negatives:
(1) Poorly written: Frankly, I found the author's style infantile. Too many devices are used far too often. For example, the ellipsis (. . .) is used, on average, about once a page. Too many sentences beginning with "And" or "But". Far too many rhetorical questions. Too many sentences ending in an exclamation point, parenthetical, italicized, and otherwise emphasized remarks. A couple of examples:

"And, if we are theologically inclined, this absolute something that is also nothing, and contains infinite power and infinite organization and infinte spacetime (omniprescence) and...if infinite energy, well, then, according to the thermodynamic laws the potential of infinite organization...and if knowledge, mind, intelligence, and so on, are organization, then omniscience...which is God!" (p. 398,Italics and all ellipses in original.)

"Thus, two different theories adequately represented the facts! Could they be united?" (p. 388)

Each of these devices, if used sparingly, can be effective. But the text is littered with them.

(2) Other reviewers have praised the book for making connections between science and religion, philosophy, etc. For the most part, I found the explanations for these connections quite thin. In 443 pages, it is not possible to offer a comprehensive history of (western) science along with wide-ranging connections.

(3) A banal, undue conclusion: science is merely a "game", "a form of play". Standard, postmodernist claptrap: "Science is a cultural artifact that belongs to one branch of humanity, the West. It is no more; it is no less." (p. 441)

Conclusion: The author has attempted an ambitious work that, in my opinion, largely fails, in terms of both content and style. It is unclear who is the intended audience - Undergraduates? (science majors or not?) The Informed Lay reader? I'm not sure that this volume is particularly enlightening for any such subpopulation.