Dear, Peter 1958-

views updated

Dear, Peter 1958-

PERSONAL:

Born March 3, 1958.

ADDRESSES:

Office—Cornell University, Department of Science & Technology Studies, 306 Rockefeller Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853. E-mail—[email protected].

CAREER:

Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, President Andrew D. White Professor of the History of Science.

WRITINGS:

Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools, Cornell University Press (Ithaca, NY), 1988.

(Editor) The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies, University of Pennsylvania Press (Philadelphia, PA), 1991.

Discipline & Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, IL), 1995.

(Editor) The Scientific Enterprise in Early Modern Europe: Readings from Isis, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, IL), 1997.

Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and Its Ambitions, 1500-1700, Princeton University Press (Princeton, NJ), 2001.

The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World, University of Chicago Press (Chicago, IL), 2006.

SIDELIGHTS:

Peter Dear is a professor of the history of science, a topic about which he has written and edited a number of books. His Discipline & Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution, for example, is a study of the difficult transition in science from the Aristotelian school to the experimental method in Europe during the seventeenth century. In Aristotelian science, the tendency was to try to impose common sense and a catalog of what was known onto scientific observation; in the modern experimental method, however, if observations do not match theories or "common sense," the hypothesis is adapted to account for the unexpected result. Such an approach was considered monstrous to Aristotelian thinkers. Dear's task in Discipline & Experience is to trace how one accepted school of thought was supplanted by the other. Much of the book, according to Marjorie Grene in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, is dedicated to a discussion of the Jesuit mathematicians who created a "Physico-Mathematical-Experimental Learning" approach. The Jesuits "were the pre-eminent teachers of Europe, or at least of Catholic Europe, in this period," Grene explained, so Dear's dedication to the subject is appropriate, further pointing out that prominent men such as the Italian natural philosopher Galileo Galilei and the French mathematician Blaise Pascal "retained more of the Aristotelian approach to experience than one might have thought."

The Jesuit mathematicians were more important than the natural philosophers of the time, Dear says, because their discipline trained them in the practice of creating proofs for their theories, and they applied this method to other sciences, such as biology and astronomy. "With immense learning, Dear presents these developments in detailed and convincing form, often quoting the participants' own words," reported Grene, who went on to note that further chapters examine the natural philosophers and Pascal in more depth. Grene, however, had some problems with Dear's contentions, including the author's apparent belief that the natural philosophers were subordinate in importance to the development of the modern scientific method. Grene also disagreed with Dear's statement that Aristotle believed in universals, with the critic countering that Aristotle worked hard "to refute the Platonic Forms." In addition, Grene felt the discussion on Hume was confusing and obscure and objected that "Dear seems to be writing also under the influence of a more recently rampant social constructivism." Nevertheless, Grene pointed these problems out as only "minor matters," and overall assessed the book as a work that "must undoubtedly rank as a major contribution to the intellectual history of the seventeenth century."

More recently, Dear published The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World, a broad work examining how science has tried to help humankind understand the world. Dear surveys important movements in science, including the attempts to classify the natural world, the revolutions in chemistry, and the theory of evolution. An Internet Bookwatch reviewer recommended the book "for the non-specialist and general reader."

BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL SOURCES:

PERIODICALS

American Historical Review, April, 1990, review of Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools, p. 449.

BJHS: The British Journal for the History of Science, December, 1989, William A. Wallace, review of Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools, p. 465; September, 1992, Steven Shapin, review of The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument: Historical Studies, p. 388; June, 2004, John Henry, review of Revolutionizing the Sciences: European Knowledge and Its Ambitions, 1500-1700, p. 199.

British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, March, 1997, Marjorie Grene, review of Discipline & Experience: The Mathematical Way in the Scientific Revolution, p. 113.

Catholic Historical Review, January, 1989, Ronald Calinger, review of Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools, p. 171.

Choice: Current Reviews for Academic Libraries, November, 2001, M. Mounts, review of Revolutionizing the Sciences, p. 532; March, 2007, G.D. Oberle, review of The Intelligibility of Nature: How Science Makes Sense of the World, p. 1187.

College English, January, 1993, Alan G. Gross, review of The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument, p. 82.

English Historical Review, November, 2001, Ian Maclean, review of Revolutionizing the Sciences, p. 1273.

Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences, spring, 2007, Kalil Oldham, review of The Intelligibility of Nature, p. 483.

Internet Bookwatch, November, 2006, "The Intelligibility of Nature."

Isis, March, 1990, Owen Hannaway, review of Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools, p. 77; March, 1992, Trevor Melia, review of The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument, p. 100; March, 1997, Peter Barker, review of Discipline & Experience, p. 122.

Journal of British Studies, October, 1998, Deborah E. Harkness, review of Discipline & Experience, p. 448.

Journal of European Studies, March 2001, Jeremy Black, review of Revolutionizing the Sciences, p. 108.

Journal of Historical Geography, October, 1998, Charles W.J. Withers, review of The Scientific Enterprise in Early Modern Europe: Readings from Isis, p. 486.

Journal of the History of Ideas, April, 1991, review of The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument, p. 346.

Nature, June 13, 1996, William Shea, review of Discipline & Experience, p. 568; July 12, 2001, Michael Hunter, review of Revolutionizing the Sciences, p. 120.

New Scientist, December 6, 1997, review of The Scientific Enterprise in Early Modern Europe, p. 48; March 16, 2002, review of Revolutionizing the Sciences, p. 46.

Philosophy of Science, September, 1997, Lorraine Daston, review of Discipline & Experience, p. 519.

Quarterly Journal of Speech, February, 1996, review of The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument, p. 74.

Quarterly Review of Biology, June, 2007, Robert J. Deltete, review of The Intelligibility of Nature, p. 141.

Reference & Research Book News, May, 1997, review of The Scientific Enterprise in Early Modern Europe, p. 140.

Science Books & Films, March, 2002, review of Revolutionizing the Sciences, p. 358; November, 2002, review of Revolutionizing the Sciences, p. 539.

Science News, October 7, 2006, review of The Intelligibility of Nature, p. 239.

SciTech Book News, July, 1991, review of The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument, p. 5; December, 1995, review of Discipline & Experience, p. 4; August, 1996, review of Discipline & Experience, p. 3; June, 1997, review of The Scientific Enterprise in Early Modern Europe, p. 4.

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, December, 1989, Daniel Garber, review of Mersenne and the Learning of the Schools, p. 531.

Technology and Culture, July, 1997, Douglas M. Jesseph, review of Discipline & Experience, p. 756.

Times Literary Supplement, September 13, 1996, Michael Hunter, review of Discipline & Experience, p. 27; August 18, 2006, "One Thing after Another," p. 30.