Reviews for Physics:foundations of Physical Science

The average rating for Physics:foundations of Physical Science based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2013-01-05 00:00:00 Justin Henderson من هم به دلایل فنی و هم برای مطالعه ی عام سراغ این کتاب رفتم. وستفال در آغاز متذکر این مطلب می شه که این کتاب برای تدریس به دانشجویان لیسانس و آشنایی آنها با فضای تحولات علمی قرن هفدهم تألیف شده. به تبع این ایده نباید اصلا انتظار ارجاعات و جزئیات فلسفی رو داشت - در واقع کتاب اصلا ارجاعی نداره اما علی رغم این هدف محدود، وستفال کتابی تألیف کرده راهگشا - برای کسانی که می خوان بدونن داستان چیه. همچنین این کتاب برای خواننده ی پیگیر اشاراتی داره به اینکه چه موضوعات، افرادی و رساله هایی رو باید برای مطالعات جدی تر لحاظ کنه - این موضوع خصوصا در مورد کتابنامه ی پایان کتاب صادقه. خود من از نظر فنی دنبال مطالب مربوط به دکارت، لایبنیتس و نیوتن بودم اما بعد خوندن بخش های مربوط تازه دوزاریم افتاد که نسبت به تأثیر هویگنس کلا غافل بوده ام عیبی هم داره کتاب و اون روشن نبودن جزئیات مباحث و آزمایش های علمیه. در بسیاری موارد وقتی وستفال به آزمایش ها و جزئیات کارهای علمی می پردازه منِ خواننده ی عام - به معنای ناآشنا به جزئیات فیزیک، مگر خاطرات دبیرستان - گیج می زنم و متوجه نمی شم. مثلا بخش هویگنس برای من مهم بود اما نمی تونستم ازش سردربیارم. پس اگر می خواید جزئیات پیگیری کنید کتاب به دلیل اختصارش اذیتتون می کنه اما در مورد ترجمه. جمع شدن اسم آذرنگ و رضایی از نظر روانی نویدبخش یه ترجمه ی خوبه. اما فی الواقع نمی شه ترجمه رو ترجمه ی دلچسبی دونست. نچسبی عام ترجمه، به زبان فارسی نه چندان روان متن برمیگرده (که در مواردی ابهام زا هم هست) - البته متن فارسی اصلا بد نیست و کاملا معقوله اما خوب هم نیست. سوای این مطلبِ تا حدی سلیقه ای، در موارد معدودی اشتباه در ترجمه یا در موارد معدودتر اشتباه در ترجمه ی اصطلاحات وجود داره. عیب فنی کار هم اینه که مترجمان از آوردن پاورقی انگلیسی (یا لاتین و ...) بسیاری اصطلاحات و اسامی سر باز زدند - خصوصا اگر دنبال یه اصطلاح خاص در متن باشید متوجه این مطلب می شین (مثلا من در قبال اصطلاح "ایمپتوس" این سردرگمی رو داشتم). خلاصه اینکه اگه کار جدی ای با کتاب دارید - که البته صرفا برای آغاز خوبه - متن انگلیسی کنار دستتون باشه ضرر نمی کنید. البته باز هم می گم که مشکلات ترجمه ی فارسی اصلا زیاد نیست

Review # 2 was written on 2006-12-26 00:00:00 Gordon Gower The History of Science Series was an attempt to disseminate information about the History of Science for a diverse, unspe¬cialized audience. The intent of each book in the series was to present a condensed analysis of a particular topic or period in the history of Western science. Richard S. Westfall's book, The Construction of Modern Science: Mechanisms and Mechanics contrib¬uted to the series with its discussion of the seventeenth-century scientific revolution. This period was influenced by two major themes; The first was the Platonic-Pythagorean tradition which viewed nature in geometric terms and the cosmos as mathematical order, and the second theme was the mechanical philosophy which saw nature as a machine and used mechanisms in the explanation of phenomena. The intent of this book was to examine the influence of these two themes on the beginnings of modern science in the seventeenth century. The book was structured with each subdivision of science, including chemistry, biology, mechanics, and dynamics, receiving a separate discussion on how it was influenced by the mechanical philosophy. This philosophy provided the guidelines for scientif¬ic investigation by establishing the need for a mechanical expla¬nation which consistently interfered with the Pythagoreans and their mathematical description of nature. A chapter was also devoted to the study of the rise of the scientific society and the importance of the new instrumentation and use of the experi¬mental method. The book offered no conclusion, but ended with the Newtonian synthesis of the Galileo's mathematics and Descartes' mechanical philosophy. Reviews of Westfall's book were positive. Library Journal (Vol. 97, Mar 74, p. 886) said it that it was one of the best introductions to seventeenth century science. Science Books and Films (Vol. 7, Mar 72, p. 290) called the book the "most readable and unified account" of the scientific greats of the period. The English Historical Review (Vol. 94, Jul 79, p. 638) said West¬fall's effort had yet to be exceeded as of 1979. But, this review felt that the book was oversimplified and that no discussion was given to the most important problem of how these new ideas were mainstreamed into society. In my opinion the book accomplished what the series prom¬ised, and met the requirements of its own intent. Its structure was successfully balanced between anachronistic comparisons of today and diachronic descriptions of the past. Westfall clearly explained his intent in the introduction and followed it through to the end. He focused on the major individuals of the period while not inundating the reader with facts and names. It seemed to me that this was the first book, which we have read, that was not trying to prove to the reader how great the science of its period was. With the rise of the experimental method and the scientific societies, science was taken to a new level of exist¬ence which seemed to be beyond the need for justification. I was surprised with the amount of influence Descartes had on the scientific revolution. Even the cover of the book dis¬played a diagram of his Vortical theory. I had previously thought of him as merely a philosopher, yet every chapter contained Descartes' explanation about the topic in question from chemistry to biology. In the end it was Newton's ultimate synthesis of De¬scartes and Galileo which carried the seventeenth century to the point of revolution. Perhaps, because of this influence on all aspects of the scientific revolution, Westfall chose Descartes' diagram to adorn the front cover of the book in silent affirma¬tion of his significance. I also found it interesting that the universities were actually the opponents of the new intellectual activity. It was understandable in light of the reluctance to give up Aristotelian doctrines and the still strong connections with Christianity and the church. Yet, it was interesting that the emerging scientific societies were the institutions that were responsible for the propagation of scientific knowledge. Previously, in this course, I had thought that the Greeks were the first scientists; but now, I fully believe that science, in the modern sense, did not begin until the seventeenth century. It was at this time that science finally became established and received widespread recognition as, for example, the Royal Socie¬ty accepting all interested armatures in the hopes of advancing science. Also, the experimental method was finally understood with the advent of the controlled experiment and the invention of instrumentation. It was the combination of these aspects of culture (which the Greeks did not have) and the progressive thinking of Descartes, Galileo, and Newton that ushered in the foundations of modern science.