Recently, I found myself looking at a couple of works of Newton--"A Treatise of the System of the World," and "Opticks." (I'm not sure how "System of the World" relates to the Principia).
Well, there is a reason that physics is not taught by reading the classics. Most of what I read (aside from gruesomely detailed descriptions of tides) was material that I already understand, and have even taught. And it took considerable mental effort to figure out that he was saying something I already knew. Things like how a planet's distance from the sun and period are "sesquiproportional." That took a minute to decode. It means they are related by the 3/2 power. Because, apparently, you couldn't use equations in that century. Any modern book would tell you P2 = a3.
So, no, you don't learn physics from Newton, you learn it from Halliday and Resnick, with a decent teacher as an intermediary.
Thank you for that. The science selections of the Great Books series occasionally makes me feel like a stupid person, especially given Adler's constant assertions in the introductory material that they are "great" in part because accessible to everyone, if they try.
It's nice to have confirmation from people with actual science backgrounds that, no, these technical and factually dated works are not in fact the scientific equivalent of the Freshman humanities survey.
Oh, yeah. Reading any scientist in the original is something you do out of historical curiosity, after you learn the material. It's not something you do to understand the material. Actually, one of the things that makes science beautiful is that the ideas work completely independently of the words of the people who discovered them.
Not only can it be in cryptic language, but it can be full of downright errors. Reading Newton's "Opticks" was interesting from the perspective of someone who understands optics, just to see how close he gets to wave theory--even calculating the half-wavelength of light accurately--without acknowledging that light travels in waves.
In other words, reading Newton to learn physics is an exercise in utter gobbledegook. Most of the mental tools used in the teaching and understanding of classical physics were developed after Newton.
Oh, I'm familiar with many mysteries--my request was for historical ones specific to the 18th Century. Maan Meyers writes about crimes set when Old NY was once New Amsterdam; The Outlander series is in Scotland close to Bonnie Prince Charlie's insurrection, etc.
I read a couple of novels for a Japanese history class when I was in college that I think you might enjoy, though neither of them are mysteries
( ... )
Ooh, this reminds me. If you're okay with plays, I think I have a bunch of Japanese plays set in this era. (Also possibly some Indian plays set in this era.) I can sort through and recommend some if I can find the box they're in.
They're probably a little dated and I haven't read them in a while, but Katherine Patterson's two Japan novels - The Master Puppeteer and Of Nightingales That Weep were favorites when I was a teenager. I believe both are set in 18th century Japan. (They are young adult novels and were written in the mid 1970s, though. And, if I remember correctly, are just as much gut punches as every other one of her books, so fair warning.)
There are a whole host of American Revolution/Pre-Revolution books, too. Which isn't precisely Europe, at least. Let me poke at bookshelves and think about it.
Comments 11
Well, there is a reason that physics is not taught by reading the classics. Most of what I read (aside from gruesomely detailed descriptions of tides) was material that I already understand, and have even taught. And it took considerable mental effort to figure out that he was saying something I already knew. Things like how a planet's distance from the sun and period are "sesquiproportional." That took a minute to decode. It means they are related by the 3/2 power. Because, apparently, you couldn't use equations in that century. Any modern book would tell you P2 = a3.
So, no, you don't learn physics from Newton, you learn it from Halliday and Resnick, with a decent teacher as an intermediary.
Reply
It's nice to have confirmation from people with actual science backgrounds that, no, these technical and factually dated works are not in fact the scientific equivalent of the Freshman humanities survey.
Reply
Not only can it be in cryptic language, but it can be full of downright errors. Reading Newton's "Opticks" was interesting from the perspective of someone who understands optics, just to see how close he gets to wave theory--even calculating the half-wavelength of light accurately--without acknowledging that light travels in waves.
In other words, reading Newton to learn physics is an exercise in utter gobbledegook. Most of the mental tools used in the teaching and understanding of classical physics were developed after Newton.
Reply
There is also Alexander Mcall Smith's Ladies' Detective Agency series, which you have probably heard of.
Technically Europe, but Tom Rob Smith's Leo Demidov trilogy.
Borges and the Eternal Orangutans.
I would also be remiss in not mentioning Tony Hillerman's Navajo mysteries.
And the Amelia Peabody mysteries by Elizabeth Peters are light fluffy historical fiction set in Egypt.
Reply
Oh, I'm familiar with many mysteries--my request was for historical ones specific to the 18th Century. Maan Meyers writes about crimes set when Old NY was once New Amsterdam; The Outlander series is in Scotland close to Bonnie Prince Charlie's insurrection, etc.
Reply
Reply
Let me know if I should go looking.
Reply
Reply
There are a whole host of American Revolution/Pre-Revolution books, too. Which isn't precisely Europe, at least. Let me poke at bookshelves and think about it.
Reply
YA, eh? Probably be able to squeeze them in, anyhow.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment