What is the origin of science?

I'm utterly fascinated by how individuals all through the ages have revealed truths about the universe and changed over these into an abundance of technological marvels. This cycle has diminished the enduring of millions of people—even as it's sparked completely new issues. Regardless of the outcomes of scientific inquiry, the process itself is captivating.

The world you inhabit today is full of gadgets that once belonged to science fiction. We can model what the earth looked like millions of years ago, or zoom in and observe the atoms that make up our own bodies. But the gradual transformation of man from an introvert living in dens to an extrovert exploring a whole universe of possibilities is a marvelous tale in itself.

If I am going to tell that inspiring story: I'll ponder thinking with Aristotle, digging Y-shaped canals in Song Dynasty China, listening to Ismail al-Jazari's extraordinary robot musicians in medieval Turkey, fighting an electrical war in New York City ( if you are unfamiliar with this see  2017 film, The Current War), and discovering the shape of DNA in Cold War England.

Yet, the historical backdrop of science is by no means an account of humankind's aggregate development from obliviousness to knowledge, for two different reasons: First, however much researchers today dislike admitting, we are still pretty much oblivious… And, we disagree on what it would mean to arrive at an ultimate Truth, with capital T in the words of Hank Green.

Take a big question that we've been asking for a long time like “what is Matter?”:

While modern physicists will tell you that stuff is made of atoms, and atoms are made of quarks and leptons, we still don’t know why quarks exist? Or why does there appear to be far more matter in the universe than we can account for? Even something as basic as “Matter” needs a lot more science to it.

Second, and more importantly, for historians, “science” isn’t a stable or single idea. That’s why, in this session, we’re going to be thinking about some ways to answer a deceptively simple question:

         

What is the origin of science?

 Today, “science” can mean both our knowledge about the world as well as how we know that knowledge. Within that “how,” there are two main practices that systematically generate knowledge:

One: observe some specific aspects of the world.

Two: conduct an experiment to answer some questions about the world.

 

And this we have pretty much covered in the previous post about "What Exactly is Science?" with that unorthodox and plain example of Lemon Juice. Anyway, I hope that gave you a good insight into how science works. First, you make a hypothesis about the ingredients of juice and then you check that hypothesis by tasting it (the experiment part).                      

Now, when I said systematically, I meant that there are rules about experimenting—rules that anyone can follow. That notion of anyone being able to be a scientist, that we are following from day 1, is super important, you just need to ask " How, What, Why". In fact, a lot of contemporary scientists have three Latin words etched on their arms:

                           "NULLIUS IN VERBA”—“on no one’s word…”

Let’s explore this phrase because it's important.                                                   

“NULLIUS IN VERBA” is the motto of the Royal Society. This society of knowledge-makers was founded in 1660 as a “College for the Promoting of Physico-Mathematical Experimental Learning” and re-founded in 1663 as notorious “the Royal Society of London for the Improvement of Natural Knowledge.” Society was started as a spot to discuss novel thoughts regarding nature. Its members demonstrated experiments in front of each other witnessing evidence behind their hypotheses.

Influenced by Francis Bacon’s ideas, which would eventually become associated with the “scientific method,” the founding members of the Royal Society chose a motto with an unambiguous meaning:

        "Don’t believe something just because someone tells you it’s true"

And when they said that they included the Holy Books in it, just to make it clear. It says test out each new hypothesis, or educated guess, yourself. 

In other words: your individual proof of how some natural phenomenon works should be something that anyone can reproduce. This idea had an enormous impact on the history of science. Later members of the Royal Society included stars such as Newton, Ben Franklin, Mike Faraday, Chuck Darwin, and Einstein

In fact, the early scientists who adopted the rule “NULLIUS IN VERBA” were not actually “scientists.” They were well-off alchemists and medical doctors, and they called themselves Natural Philosophers. That should ring some bells! Remember 9th class Physics, well if you don't either you are from O-level background or an ignorant student. 

William Whewell

Natural philosophy in seventeenth-century England was similar to the contemporary inherent sciences squashed up with medication, math, philosophy, and a whiff of religion. The word “scientists” was just instituted as of late, in authentic terms, during the 1830s, and got on around 1840. It was made up by an English researcher named William Whewell who was also a historian of science and a priest.

Thinking about Royal Society, its individuals have been, up to this point, only rich English men. Even though their positions have included numerous amazingly smart researchers, they haven't addressed anything like all information producers. However, the historical backdrop of systematically acquiring knowledge returns a lot farther than the Royal Society and incorporates a larger number of sorts of individuals than English guys.

Hence "science" is a verifiable and social idea—not one that is existed forever, in the same way for all individuals. Because the history of science includes many systems of understanding the world, we have to consider these systems on their own terms. It might appear to be more straightforward to zero in on the "champs" of history. But hearing only the big Euroamerican names—Plato, Einstein—doesn’t teach us as much about our global system of science today.

 We can see natural philosophers and other proto-researchers as keen individuals sorting out their reality, not as "awful" researchers. They comprehended their general surroundings in the most brilliant manner they could. For instance, as indicated by Mediterranean medication, the organ in my mind was for venting waste warmth, not reasoning. Individuals in the past weren't dumb: they realized that if your head was cleaved off, that was curtains for you. They simply didn't know what this peculiar dark-gray stuff did. 

Even today—though we can see a neuron fire in high-resolution—we struggle to understand what really goes on when it fires, that is, the role a single neuron plays in thinking…much fewer answers to the question, what is consciousness. The history of science really gets even juicier when incremental, nagging questions about the natural world add up and causes a scientific discipline, or an entire society, to change in a “revolutionary” way. And this my dear friends is happening today as we are compelled to rethink the ground rules that set the wheel of science in motion. 

All throughout the planet, people are still effectively attempting to comprehend our universe… however, they don't all concede to how to do it. We might have the option to make more precise models of natural phenomena… yet we may never track down the definitive answers we look for. At its breaking point, the historical backdrop of science addresses the investigation of religion: the assorted and changing nature of the ceaseless human quest for Truth, capital T. Knowledge, as they told us in grade school, really is power! The power that knowing stuff gives the knower is exactly why we should study the history of science.

Consequently, the objective of this article is to feature how the beliefs about right and wrong and the ethics of scientists and engineers shape our reality.  Also, how, alternately, sciences and advances are formed by the social orders that produce them. Our way through past knowledge universes will be a wonderful and amazing one. There are numerous and wonderful experiences yet to celebrate.

.

   "Learning the history of science can help shine a light on this dark future."