The Age of Wonder: The Romantic Generation and the Discovery of the Beauty and Terror of Science

I gave one star not because of the content of the book but for the printed price on it . The actual printed price on the book is rs 899 but here it's shown rs 999. This is not good.

When I was in Junior HS I did a report on Kepler and his great and famous laws. The first batch are unmistakably brilliant, profound, and timeless. They have to do with mathematical generalizations he made from observations of the positions of planets. Orbits are ellipses. The sweep of an orbit covers uniform area in time independent of the distance from the sun. “The square of the orbital period of a planet is proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.” [Wikipedia] But there was another law just as famous and “brilliant” in its time. It states that the reason there were six planets is that there are five Platonic solids. Utter nonsense! That someone as brilliant as Kepler would have gotten something so wrong is astounding. But when you think about it, what did he do in the three laws for which he is still famous? He generalized observations with math (equations). The emerging theory is testable and falsifiable and can be used to make predictions. How is his Platonic solids hypothesis different? It is predictive: no other planets will be discovered. It is falsifiable; and was falsified by Herschel’s discovery of Uranus, if not before with the discovery of some asteroids. But while the ellipse theories--which can all be derived immediately from Newton’s gravity equation--are all solid to the modern scientific sensibility, the hokum about Platonic solids is not. Why not? Taking this thread in a more immediate direction: today we are faced with scientific denialism not seen in a century. News is false. Science is false. Climate change is just made up by paranoid liberals and grant grubbing scientists. But crucially – How is the public to be able to tell the difference? Between charlatanry and brilliance? In the end, all complex truth comes down to authority. We are taught that proof-by-authority is the weakest type of “proof.” That it is laughable. And yet – science would be nowhere without it. We don’t have time to read every manuscript or fund every proposal that comes our way. How can we tell the bizarre truth from the crackpot? We cannot reproduce every experiment. These are two BIG ideas both having to do with the nature of belief in science. And as can be seen from Richard Holmes’s book, they are also evolving. To summarize the points so far: what is the “intuition” of scientific belief, both by the scientist and the non-scientist? (Of course the great thing about science is that it advances even with very poor intuition, but it might take eons longer to get anywhere.) The short description of “The Age of Wonder” is a collection of intertwined biographies of English scientists around the Romantic Era. The stars are Joseph Banks, Anthropologist (before there was such a thing); William Herschel, Astronomer; and Humphry Davy, Chemist. Just below the marquee are Mungo Park, explorer and William Lawrence, physician. There is a huge cast of vital supporting actors, led by the heroic Caroline Herschel, Astronomer, assistant to brother William, and both beloved and abused. Others are the balloonists; certain secondary intellects; the previous generation, including Erasmus Darwin; the next generation, the most prominent of whom is the great physicist Michael Faraday; the romantic poets and authors, Coleridge, Shelly, Mary Shelly, Wordsworth, Byron, and many others; and wives, friends, family, patrons, children, etc. Of the leads, Herschel is by far the best known today: he discovered Uranus and so upended the eternal truth of the number of planets. He also discovered the shape of our galaxy with its spiral arms. And conjectured that nebulae were themselves galaxies and so made the universe virtually infinite. An astounding career that makes Herschel one of the great astronomers in history. However, the nebula conjecture, as plausible (and true!!) as it was, and as influential, would not be proven until the era of Hubbell a hundred years later. But Herschel is also, perhaps, the best demonstration of the first point in this review: why did (do?) scientists believe stupid things? Although the “island universe” conjecture was one of the most amazing findings in the history of science, it was just that, a conjecture. Herschel also believed he could see forests on the moon. And published papers on those forests. Why is one monumental and the other ridiculous? With hindsight, the problems are obvious. Although the scientific method was widely worshiped, there was no peer review. There was little validation. Grants were given on the whim (often good whim) of a single patron or a tiny elite. Specifically, forests on the moon can be verified (someone else can look), while external nebulae must remain a hypothesis. This is the real subject of the book: the last era of science before it was really modern science. The last era before it was called science; scientists were natural philosophers. The last era where the public, or at least amateur patrons, but often the general middle class public, were actively engaged in science. And scientists were poets and writers. And friends of poets and writers and artists. It was the time when investigating recreational drugs was mainstream science. When scientists were rock stars, complete with groupies. When scientists and poets were all amazed at the wonder of nature. The book is divided into ten chapters. Most have a single scientist as its primary subject, with some repeats. Many begin broadly, often with many characters, but then usually converge to the subject, and a specific story. There are many terrific parts: Banks in Tahiti, anything having to do with the Herschels, and the vitalism controversy are some of my favorites. Also excellent are his forays into the supporting cast, especially the continental scientists (too brief), and Faraday. There is plenty of personal detail. These really are biographies. And plenty of racy stuff. Did Davy have sex or, at least, molest, his nubile subjects of NO2 tests? Interestingly, I think the weakest parts are where the subject matter intersects with Holmes’s expertise, literature of the English Romantic. He searches for influences of current science in romantic poems. The results are almost always slight. And presents the poetry of the scientists. Most of which is, not surprisingly, forgettable. But to end this review positively, as I mean it to be: the stories are great, the context is wonderful, and the points well made. And to use the cliché’, especially relevant today.

I do not speak English well enough to express the joy this book has given to me.At university I thoroughly studied the XVIII century scientific revolution and I thought I have nothing more to learn about it. I was wrong. Holmes gives a completely new perspective, describing the zeitgeist of the Romantic era as the product of the vertigo caused by the scientific revelation of how independent is Nature from us, how incomprensible is reality and how alone is the human being in the Universe. Specially moving when Herschel explains to contemporary sensitive souls the true size of Milky Way and they got completely overwhelmed by the enormity beyond imagination. Indispensable.

ペーパーバック: 380ページではなく、本文469ページ、注と索引など84ページ。カラー図版24ページ。出版社: HarperPress (2009/9/3)ISBN-13: 978-0007149537　のレビュー。　Royal Society Prizes for Science Books 2009受賞作。この賞を射止める著者は、サイエンス・ライター専業もしく第一線の研究者が多いが、この著者ホームズは文学系の研究者で、ロマン派詩人の伝記など多数の著作あり。　それではどんな本かというと、18世紀後半から100年ほどの間、まだ「科学」という制度も科学者という職業も確立されていない時代のさまざまな人物を描いた集団伝記である。この時代の精神を代表する人物として第1章はジョセフ・バンクスにあてられる。ジェイムズ・クックの第1回太平洋探検に同行した博物学者。のちにロイヤル・ソサエティのプレジデントになる人物。けたはずれの富豪で、自費で探検に参加し、キャプテンをさしおいて好き勝手なことをする人物である。　この後の章はウィリアム・ハーシェルからハンフリー・デイヴィーまでのさまざまな人物が登場する。今では「科学者」と呼ばれるひとたちであるが、本書で描かれるのは、そのような確立した身分や研究方法をおおきくはみでた人生である。この時代をいろどる人物たちは、実用的な機器を手作りする職人であり、貴族やレイディたちを楽しませる芸人であり、宇宙や世界を論じる哲学者でり、むちゃな記録にいどむ冒険家であるのだ。モーツァルト時代の音楽が好きな方は、ハーシェルが交響曲をいくつも作曲していることを知っているだろう。天文学と音楽家を兼業するなんて今では考えられないが、本書の記述を読むと、そうしたなんでもありの時代精神が納得できる。　もう一つ、本書がすばらしいのは、文学・歴史系の研究者の著作ながら、一般読者を楽しませる文章だ。予備知識がなくとも、著者の描く世界にどんどんひきこまれる。巻末に登場人物の短い紹介があって、それをみれば有名・無名の人物の基本的な略歴がわかる。ユーモアたっぷりの紹介文である。索引（24ページ）も充実している。ダーウィンは博物学の時代をへて現代科学を切り開いた人物であるが、祖父のエラスマス・ダーウィンなどに興味がある方必読。日本の荒俣宏や高山宏が好きな方、楽しめるでしょう。　著者は伝記作家として、かなり著名な人物らしく、意外なところで名前を目にした。エルヴィス・プレスリーの伝記作者Peter Guralnickが伝記を書くこころがまえ、方法論として、ホームズの考えを引用しているのだ。ふーむ。　それにしても、おれが書籍版で買った本、kindle版で200円とは！　いつも安いkindle本を買っているのに、自分が持っているのがこんない安く売られると悔しい。

Romanticism was a peculiar literary and philosophic movement, also because of its very special interest in science. The idea of a "soul" or identity of peoples lead to an early interest of the romantics in ethnology; the idea of a semi-divine nature whose projects are realized in the Earth as well as the cosmos lead to interest in geography, esploration and astronomy, as well as chemistry; the fascination in gothic and mistery lead to the interest in medicine and physiology.Holmes, in this very readable book, examines these fields, and describes the explorations and ethnology researches of Joseph Banks and Mungo Park, the astronomic observations and theories of William Herschel, the chemical studies of Humphry Davy, and gives some interesting insights in romantic medicine. Romantic medicine was my key interest in this book and is probably the subject which receives the least attention; yet you learn from this book how many of the romantic poets had a formal medical preparation from Keats to Polidori, friend and voyage companion to Byron, and how their medical studies are reflected in their gothic novels Lamia and The vampyre. You also get from this book a picture of how the romantics were impressed by the experiments by Galvani and his followers on the effects of electricity on the corpses (while Galvani had used frogs in his experiments, human corpses were tested by his successors), Mary Shelley's Frankenstein being the direct product of this fascination.Although the book suffers of some perplexing exclusions (e.g. Goethe's theory on the origin of plants; the racist theories of De Gobineau and Knox), and seems to include under the heading of romanticism all the scientific research of the late XVIII and early XIX centuries, it makes a very pleasant and informative reading.

As I physicist, I have always been fascinated by the careers and adventures of the early pioneering natural philosophers and polymaths. I am in awe of what they achieved through the raw brain power, experimentation and analyses.Prof Holmes has written a great history of a highly creative and influential time in European science. He manages to convey the political, personal and technical challenges that many of the protagonists faced and gives you an insight into their personalities and how they thought. But what I found intriguing about Prof Holmes' book was how the lives of the great romantic writers of the day Coleridge, Keats, Shelley, Byron and many others were intertwined with the 'scientists' and influenced European thought.I thoroughly recommend this to anyone interested in the history of science and its impact on society.