Considering the progression of science...

I used to work with colleagues who did, and taught History and Philosophy of science. They didn't arguably did more for more important stance on. They got on with real research.

p.s.: Galileo was asking for it.

Most kids don't learn history. Most kids are foon sped state ideology in locked curriculums with little or no preparation in method.

School curriculums are notorious. The failure to include a vaguely related minor sub-discipline in what every state uses as its own hagiography is neither puzzling nor unexpected.

>less important things
Keep that normative stance up, your absence of argument is so convincing.

History of science is a cool area I'd love to become more familiar with.

Science is not some magical stand-alone thing that exists seperate from the rest of the studies.

It's eternally being lifted up by epistemological philosophies, any application for a study needs to be sanctioned by a moral philosophy, a political movement, an ideological movement or something along these lines. The ability to produce good scientists is dependent on the material conditions of a society (who owns what land, who won what war, how resources are distributed etc.) so history and economics folds in there.

"Science" is a false God
*Tips fedora

>Most kids don't learn history. Most kids are foon sped state ideology in locked curriculums

You do realize "scientific progress improving everything" is itself an ideology? All you are saying is you want to replace one ideology you dislike with one you do like.

Uh, I'm the one arguing against "replac[ing] one ideology … with [another]."

I just want the little fuckers to learn method before they hit my tutorials, content is irrelevant.

because the government sets benchmarks in the US based on how well kids do math, so schools push math more than any other subject because they get more funding if they do better in math basically.

That would be specifically important to the economic history of the world, which is only one contributor to the course of history. For most of Human history scientific progress has been slow to the point of being irrelevant anyway.

>The pill did more for women than feminism ever did
Speaking of science: nber.org/papers/w14969

>Showing history and what science has done is an ideology
Kek

>Science is not some magical stand-alone thing that exists seperate from the rest of the studies
No one said it did.
It's normally science that jumpstarts politics and philosophy though.

>It's normally science that jumpstarts politics and philosophy though.
I like your proof of that.

Yes, it is. Try Kuhn.

Same with politics user.

Science and invention were more important to the formation of society than specific political ideologies.

youtube.com/watch?v=J1imXIDBOdo

Nice trip-quads. It's more of a feedback loop. Philosophers/politicians pose new ideas, and science investigates. Their conclusions help form new philosophical/political ideas. And also, accidents leading to new discoveries also form new ideas.

Science didn't exist until the 19th century.
Ideology developed by at least the late 18th.

I said proof, not furry porn.

Very low-quality b8

It's amazing how butthurt philosophy and political fags get when someone brings up how unimportant they.

Are you trolling user?

>I-I don't like that proof!

>Technology didn't exist until the iphone was invented!

Look up the debates on "science" versus "proto-science." Disciplinarity developed in the mid-19th century.

You know, videos starting with furry porn aren't an adequate source for grand narrative discourses of whig history and universalist claims of causation.

You might know that it is taking 30 volumes to answer the Needham question of why proto-science stagnated in China.

Technology seems to have developed in the late 19th century in Edison labs and the like.

>Look up the debates on "science" versus "proto-science." Disciplinarity developed in the mid-19th century.
The 19th century is still a really big stretch. And what about ideology? How the hell do you say 18th for that?

>And what about ideology? How the hell do you say 18th for that?
You remember some irrelevant political or social events happening in France and the United States? About that time the Whigs and Tories ceased being factions and became ideological.

m8, I think you might have actual autism. Either that, or you're defining ideology very weird.

Pretty much following Lukacs.

I think nobody else in this thread has ready any HPS at all.

>in a freshman level history class on Reconstruction through the Cold War
>learning about the 20th century
>most classmates are taking it to fulfill humanities requirement
>professor teaches out of the book, hardly strays off topic
>its the last week, we are discussing what we've learned
>"class, what do you believe is the most significent event in modern American history now knowing what we've studied?"
>only a few kids raise their hands, the first answers "the civil rights movement and MLK!" the other kids lower their hands and nod.
>"class, do you all agree? A show of hands please."
>whole class raises their hands except me
>"You disagree user?"
>"Yes"
>whole class gives me the stink eye
>"So what do you think is more significant user?"
>"Mastering flight at Kitty Hawk, landing on the moon, I don't know. I feel like there is so much we've achieved thats reshaped our destiny beyond idolized social issues."
>class remains uncomfortably silent, not sure if they are offended or considering what Ive said

I mean you brought up a valid point, but that was also lowkey autistic.

Fuck off back to mate.

Also Frick's labour discipline, high pressure water mining or IBM's card file are far more impressive.

>IM GONNA IGNORE ALL THE PROOF
Faggot.

History majors are uneducated. If they were educated they wouldn't be history majors.
Its why you spend 2 chapters on feminism but only a paragraph at best on the pill.

Yeah, it's not like Tools have been around for over a million years.
But go ahead and argue that certain politician is more important than the invention of the axe.

>/pol/
How is that /pol/ user?

Machine tools were 1860.

One thing which historians of science, and historians do, very well, is close text analysis.

Let's look at the clues which indicate this is a /pol/ post:
>green text

Genre.

>freshman
>humanities requirement
Genre elements.

>most significant event
Apart from "the event" being a highly controversial theoretical category in historiography, and "significance" basically being discounted as nothing more than the signifier of the historian's ideology, this isn't a "capstone" question.

These indicate that the story is entirely fictional, and representative of the poster's ideology (as does the freshman class).

The story then goes on to indicate how user, a heroic scientismist young male, proves a feminised collective wrong about the centrality of man's knowledge over a kind of statist bourgeois liberal social politics, with a classic argument against groupthink element of rhetoric.

If you're not posting /pol/ shit then rethink your life, because you're a tired cliche.

it's fifel you retard
he's using Marxist doublespeak

Come on, really? Why is everything a form of autism to you people?

What are some good books on history of science?

Needham on China

Autist dialectics.

It's kind of criminal how poorly understood history of science is and how unknown some of its most important figures are to most people.

Bscause historical materialism led to the creation of hierarchical structures and oppression by those who appropriate the means of production to those who merely use them to provide surplus capital to the former

>mfw a history of science thread and its just stem vs humanities memeing

>Machine tools
No one said machine tools specifically user.

Of course. When you bring up that maybe we should learn about something other than political ideology and specific politicians nationalists and retards will get mad.

>It's normally science that jumpstarts politics and philosophy though.
Yes, which is why i am enjoying the fruits of the greek steam revolution and the carolingian renaissance.
Oh, wait, that didn't happen because society wasn't ready for them?
Well shit.

Given that tool use in general began before the past is subject to history, and that tools remained largely static until the development of machine tools, I assumed that you would only mean machine tools, because tool use by language using beings probably precedes our species.

>people still fall for chicken or the egg memes
change is a complex process that is not reducible to x allows y

Because history is the study of humanity and its story.

Not just its inventions.

The main scientific principles that need to be touched on are agricultural ones- the new agricultural techniques of the Iron Age that lead to population spikes in Greece and Italy during the early classical era are vastly important.

But keep in mind that earth science and biology has always had more effect on us than anything we've ever created.

Well when the forces of production can no longer be mastered by the relations of production, a class which has a new (or abolition of) property form in its specific relation to production shatters the social and cultural superstructure opening the way for the forces of production to be unleashed in the context of new productive relations.

Geology started developing around 1800, based on christianity. Biology only really started when people worked on it for a living, rather than being dilettante taxonomers, again, 19th century.

>Tools stayed static until the mid 1800s
Are you retarded?

>Because history is the study of humanity and its story.

>Not just its politics
Fixed that for you.
No one is saying history should be all science.

Are you?

>and that tools remained largely static until the development of machine tools
Are you really saying a spear and a gun are the same shit user?

Of course not. Spears are useful.

The cotton gin had nothing to do with science though, fuckboy.

>Eating out of the trash can
Absolutely stop.

Read the op.
The word technology is there

...

>History of science isn't history
Humanities majors everyone.

No, it isn't. History of science is a completely different humanities discipline.

>History isn't history

Scientists use math which is expressed through the classical set theory that is ZFC.

Under scientific realism, the math done by the scientist is real, like electrons and photons are real (as some eigenvectors of their number operator).

This means that the axioms of ZFC are r.eal.
Now, one of the axioms is that there is a set (it is an axiom in the metalogic).

Now, where in the universe is this set? How do I observe it? measure it?

You're in a history of science thread with no awareness of "disciplinarity."

You need to align your QPUs

But the history of science and technology IS widely taught. Historians and Social theorists always bang on about the importance of technology as an instrument of social change.

Perhaps to an extent. But they are usually placed within a political context, especially at the pre-university level.

I think it's more a side effect of political theory bleedover into history instruction. Most introductory history is conveyed either in a Liberal individual-actor way, or in a Marxist class conflict way.

Both of those, in the hands of someone with too much material and too little time, lend themselves primarily to political and collective action summary. Technology, science, and math take a backseat to simplistic political narratives about Good Galileo and Bad Bishop, or Capitalist Inventiveness vs Soviet Obstructionism.

Which is why I always say content is the least important part of history instruction.

>Don't talk about evolution in a biology thread, that should be in an evolutionary biology thread!

Well how else would you teach history though? If you've got no context to present history to students, all you've got is a bunch of people, facts and figures that are kind of abstract and meaningless.

I agree that sometimes history teachers try to present simplified narratives and try to force an agenda, but at a university level atleast, you're always encouraged to find your own interpretation and are usually given different historians opinions on matters as a way to help you make up your mind.

Anyway about History of Technology. What I meant was that even though non specialised history subjects tend to skip over the technical details and only give you brief summaries of technological development. Technological development is still taught as an important element of social change through history. For example, you can't really understand the enlightenment without understanding the earlier development of the printing press, you can't understand the Industrial Revolution without understanding the development of steam power and coal as a fuel source.

>how come it is rarely focused on in history classes

Because if people learnt that it was the lack of mathematics and not atheism that held science back, many of the new atheists of today would disappear. We certainly can't have that now can we.

The church as a represive system appears on much more than just general and scientific knowledge. The power held by churches in many political, social and military manners was not deemed "christian" by many scholars, like, you know, marthin luther and many protestants.

Because history majors do not have nearly enough mathematical training to understand what even the ancient Greeks did, let along teach it. This is also why you have mathematicians doing history of mathematics instead of historians.

Learning about history of science made me gain a huge amount of appreciation for the Catholic Church.

I guess we can't have that. Better stick to conflict thesis and dark age memes.

>marthin luther and many protestants

Who've been nothing but a complete disaster to Europe and America.

>Martin Luther and Hitler

Hitler was an Austrian Catholic.

Hitler ripped off much of his stuff from Luther's "The Jews and Their Lies".

>Luther invented anti semitism

Lol no. Spanish Catholics were burning Jews before protestantism was even a thing.

Spanish Catholics were just cleansing Spain of anyone who wasn't Catholic, primarily Muslims.

>Spanish Catholics were just cleansing Spain of anyone who wasn't Catholic

Oh well, I guess that makes it ok

>antisemitism begins with Luther

Are you genuinely this retarded? Antisemitism begins with the New Testament.

Or the OT given how much the Jews talk shit about themselves, how god is always punishing them for fucking up, etc.

Well yeah.

Antisemitism is even older than Judaism.

T. Catholic reactionary

Perhaps, but NT explicitly calls Jews wicked and blames them for the death of Jesus. That's the root of European antisemitism. If someone thinks they got along with Christians perfectly fine until Luther came along and fucked shit up, they're wrong.

Yeah they should have just let the Muslim invaders rule Spain forever. Don't you have a bull to prep?

See Antisemitism has nothing to do with the New Testament.

>For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of God’s churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own people the same things those churches suffered from the Jews who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to everyone in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last.

1 Thessalonians 2:14-16