John C. Greene (1) (1917–2008)

In American Science in the Age of Jefferson, John C. Greene counters the existing historiography of American science, writing, “The Jeffersonian era was nevertheless a formative one for American science. This was at time in which basic institutions and deep-seated attitudes toward science and its relation to the rest of American culture took shape, institutions and attitudes that were to guide the subsequent course of American scientific development” (pg. xiii). He describes the significance of his work, writing, “No one has provided a general account of American science in its European context against which Jefferson’s activities as a promoter and practitioner of science could be evaluated justly” (pg. xiii). Greene’s work is primarily a synthesis surveying the larger scheme, though he argues that an understanding of the Jeffersonian era is crucial to understanding American science.
Greene writes, “The continued dependence of America on European science, the absence of major scientific figures and theoretical developments, the variety of sciences involved, the decentralized character of American science, and the many false starts and aborted beginnings make it difficult to present the picture of steady progress in scientific discovery that historians have led us to expect. There was progress in American science in the Jeffersonian era – in establishing an institutional base, assimilating European developments, and exploring a continent – but it took place in a context of flamboyant patriotism, political and religious controversy, and practical concern with commerce and industry that alternately inspired and distorted scientific development” (pg. 4). Examining the role of science in religious thinking, Greene writes, “Those who conceived the progress of knowledge and society in Christian terms and those who conceived it as a consequence of the inevitable triumph of reason and nature over arbitrary and oppressive institutions of church and state that found their ultimate sanction in supernatural revelation” (pg. 19). Greene argues, “If Jefferson was unimpressive as a scientist [having only published one volume of scientific inquiry: Notes on the State of Virginia] and unimaginative in his attitude toward innovation in science; no other high public official in American history has been so strongly identified with that cause” (pg. 33).
Examining scientific developments along the Hudson, Greene writes, “There had been an intellectual renaissance in New York in the second decade of the nineteenth century, as the proliferation of societies and journals showed” (pg. 105). He continues, “Farther up the Hudson River the United States Military Academy at West Point, reorganized along the lines of the École Polytechnique in 1817, began to give solid instruction in engineering and related sciences” (pg. 106). Greene argues that, during the Jeffersonian period, Harvard and West Point were the primary schools in the United States using French texts in mathematics and mathematical physics (pg. 131). According to Greene, “West Point as the only other educational institution to introduce French ideas and methods in mathematics and physics before 1820” (pg. 131). In this way, “Just as the science of the eastern seaboard stood in provincial relationship to the mature institutions of Europe, so that of the western county imitated and depended on eastern models, especially the Philadelphia pattern” (pg. 127).
Greene writes, “Intellectual curiosity was their [the scientists’] primary motivation, but national pride and a desire to promote the economic development of their country also played a part. For nearly all, however, science was a part-time activity, something to be studied in hours that could be spared from teaching, preaching, surveying, medical practice, or politics” (pg. 128). He continues, “The thrust of our story lies less in brilliant scientific discoveries than in the achievements of individuals working under difficult circumstances and the slow but steady progress of American science toward full partnership in the scientific enterprise of the Western world. American contributions to science must be understood and judged with reference to that great enterprise” (pg. 128-129). Greene offers the caveat, “American chemistry could not compare with European chemistry in the Jeffersonian period or for several decades thereafter, but through the efforts of men like Woodhouse, Mitchill, Gorham, Griscom, MacNeven, Hare, and Silliman it had made a good beginning” (pg. 187).
Greene concludes, “Many of these individuals carried over Jeffersonian ideas and attitudes into the post-Jeffersonian period; but the political, economic, social, and intellectual environment in which they worked was altered. The transition was gradual, but by the 1830s the change of context was unmistakable. Beginning about 1815 there was a noticeable increase in the pace of scientific activity” (pg. 410). Unlike the Jeffersonian period, “The leading figures in American science were less and less frequently men whose main business was something other than science” (pg. 410).… (lisätietoja)

Both science and religion have a role in the world. It is symptomatic of modern time that they are pitched against each other and the discussion strives for supremacy of the one, and annihilation of the other. Religious fundamentalism leaves littlle room for science, while some scientists try to obliterate religion. In the current debate, it seems there is possibility for co-existence: the battle is for elimination. This battle if increasingly fought with simplified arguments, and seen as a black-or-white dualistic dilemma.

Darwin and the modern world view offers a balanced view and exploration of the history of ideas, in three essays. In the first essay, the author investigates the interacation between the ideas as expressed by Darwin and ideas found in the Bible or explained by religious philosophers. The second essay is devoted to Natural Theology, a term now little understood. The thirds essay explores the relation between Darwinism and the social sciences.

Human knowledge consists of a domain of facts and ideas. Facts are a type of knowledge that can be shown to be true or not true, and tends to achieve some level of permanence, once well-established. Ideas are a type of knowledge which cannot be disproved, but can be agreed of disagreed with. To fundamentalist religion, Darwin's evaolution theory is in essence unacceptable, because it contradicts divine revelation. To scientists, a supernatural power is unacceptable, because it cannot be proved. Neither is scripture acceptable, because the origin of the Bible as divine revelation cannot be proved. Natural Theology cannot be reconciled with Natural Science, because Natural Theology presupposes faith, and faith cannot be proved to refer to a reality in truth. These ideas are elegantly explored and eloquently explained in Darwin and the modern world view.

The description refers to sources ranging back to the Middle Ages, with particular focus on the interaction between William Paley' ideas on Natural Theology, as a Christian apologist, though predating Darwin, and Thomas Henry Huxley as a fierce defender of Darwin's theory of evolution, as first put forward in 1859.

By 1922, Darwin's evolution theory was widely accepted among scientists, and this acceptance has only grown since then. Darwin and the modern world view collects three essays which were delivered in 1960, but published together in 1981. This delayed publication is irrelevant. The essays present a high level of scholarship, which is as readable and topical as it was, when first conceived. Darwin and the modern world view can still make a very valuable contribution to the debate on the relation between natural science and religion, and show how each takes its place in a more tolerant world view.… (lisätietoja)