A History of the Sciences
A History of the Sciences. By S. F. Mason. (Routledge and Kegan Paul. 28s.) DR. MASON'S intention in writing this book was to produce a lucid, 500-page survey presenting the "Main currents of scientific thought" in their historical contexts in such a way as to appeal to "those who wish to comprehend the development of the natural sciences and the part they have played, and are playing, in the movement of human history." This was hardly a practical programme for a man still in his twenties. One is accordingly not surprised to find that he has had time only to throw together a colledtion of dry ingredients. To his credit, he has taken care not to confine his selection to the West, or to the physical, or even the pure sciences. China and Baghdad, politics and religion, medicine and paper-making all have their place in the mixture. For this reason the book, being well-indexed, may be found useful as a work of reference by amateurs of the subject. Omissions are unavoidable, but few glaring mistakes strike the eye. The chief errors are of interpretation: it is misleading, for example, to suggest that the art of writing preceded the development of mytho- logical and historical literature—what about oral traditions?—and it is an anachronism to speak of Anaximander's believing "that living organisms had arisen from inorganic matter," when in his time even the distinction between the living and the inert was far in the future.
What really spoils the book is the presentation. The ingredients are served up just as they are, and never begin to blend; the style of writing is a drab officialese; and the historical morals drawn are jejune historicist generalities. One illustration of each point which show what the reader must expect. The setting up of "the first paper-mill in Christendom at Herault in 1189" is mentioned three times in ten pages, twice an identical words, without the author indicating that he is aware of the repetition; "conceptions in ancient Egypt as to the structure of the universe," we are told portentously, "were not dissimilar"; and "all in all it would transpire from the German experience (in 1933 - 45) that a society engendering and sustained by values which are antagonistic to those of science will become historically less and less effective in the modern world." After so much dry fare, we deserve some more perceptive conclusions.
To end with, an attempt is made to be judicial about the Lysenko affair. Russian and Western cases are set out with much appearance of impartiality. But most people will feel the crux is politely glossed over when the Soviet school of Mendelian genetics is only said to have been "disbanded."
STEPHEN TOULMIN
Previous page
