The Knowledge: How to Rebuild Civilization in the Aftermath of a Cataclysm, Lewis Dartnell (Penguin, 2014). This is not the book I wanted to read. The book I wanted to read was a detailed guide to bootstrapping your way to industrial civilization (or at least antibiotics) if you should happen to be dumped back in, say, the late Bronze Age.
I'm reminded of the book, Earth Abides. Where the main character would like to rebuild civilization based on the past one but realizes that it's not possible or practicable. Can goods and ammo are scarce 30 years after the collapse and they need a better way to acquire food. He decides to show the younger generation a bow and arrow. Thinking it would be efficient for how they now live but also save civilization a lot of time in having to reinvent it.
In great scientific writing, I'd recommend Structures, or why things don't fall down, by JE Gordon. He discusses things as diverse as the musical skills required of Roman artillery officers, trusses, why metal beams are ][ shaped, bias cut dresses, why medieval churches have buttresses, and crack propagation.
"Copernicus’s theory was substantially less accurately predictive than the Ptolemaic geocentric model that preceded it. A proper Popperian science should have rejected it out of hand; only steadfastly ignoring the data let it stick around long enough to be refined and generally adopted."
This is simply not true. Both theories were, very roughly, equally inaccurate, though observations by Tycho Brahe (the most careful pre-telescopic observer) suggested that Copernicus's theory tended, on average, to provide better predictions.
E.g., from this discussion of Tycho's observations [https://inference-review.com/article/ptolemy-versus-copernicus]: "The analysis offered here has demonstrated that Tycho compared the predictions of planetary positions made by Copernicus and Ptolemy with his own observations and indeed found, on balance, Copernicus to be superior. In fact, Tycho’s own data refute the claim, made by many historians of science, that overall the Copernican theory was not superior to the Ptolemaic."
It is perhaps instructive to consider what happened later when Galileo observed the phases of Venus with a telescope, reporting a sequence of phases which agreed perfectly with the Copernican model but which were strictly impossible according to Ptolemy; when this was verified by other observers, the Ptolemaic model was rapidly discarded by most astronomers -- see, e.g., the discussion in David Wootton's The Invention of Science. Which is actually a pretty "Popperian" moment.
I'm reminded of the book, Earth Abides. Where the main character would like to rebuild civilization based on the past one but realizes that it's not possible or practicable. Can goods and ammo are scarce 30 years after the collapse and they need a better way to acquire food. He decides to show the younger generation a bow and arrow. Thinking it would be efficient for how they now live but also save civilization a lot of time in having to reinvent it.
In great scientific writing, I'd recommend Structures, or why things don't fall down, by JE Gordon. He discusses things as diverse as the musical skills required of Roman artillery officers, trusses, why metal beams are ][ shaped, bias cut dresses, why medieval churches have buttresses, and crack propagation.
Sounds right up my alley, thanks!
"Copernicus’s theory was substantially less accurately predictive than the Ptolemaic geocentric model that preceded it. A proper Popperian science should have rejected it out of hand; only steadfastly ignoring the data let it stick around long enough to be refined and generally adopted."
This is simply not true. Both theories were, very roughly, equally inaccurate, though observations by Tycho Brahe (the most careful pre-telescopic observer) suggested that Copernicus's theory tended, on average, to provide better predictions.
E.g., from this discussion of Tycho's observations [https://inference-review.com/article/ptolemy-versus-copernicus]: "The analysis offered here has demonstrated that Tycho compared the predictions of planetary positions made by Copernicus and Ptolemy with his own observations and indeed found, on balance, Copernicus to be superior. In fact, Tycho’s own data refute the claim, made by many historians of science, that overall the Copernican theory was not superior to the Ptolemaic."
It is perhaps instructive to consider what happened later when Galileo observed the phases of Venus with a telescope, reporting a sequence of phases which agreed perfectly with the Copernican model but which were strictly impossible according to Ptolemy; when this was verified by other observers, the Ptolemaic model was rapidly discarded by most astronomers -- see, e.g., the discussion in David Wootton's The Invention of Science. Which is actually a pretty "Popperian" moment.