NINE: THE EVENTS THAT MATTER I: SIGNIFICANT EVENTS
In the 1950s, American culture embraced a collection of major human achievements, often highlighted in popular media. People agreed on certain icons, like the Mona Lisa as the greatest painting and Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony as the best musical work. Major inventions were also recognized, with essential contributions from fire and the wheel to gunpowder and the printing press. However, the 1960s changed this perspective. The concept of a singular "greatest" was challenged, especially with the influence of Thomas Kuhn's idea that scientific progress is based on changing paradigms rather than absolute truths. Historian Lynn White proposed that seemingly minor inventions, like the stirrup, had profound historical impacts. This led to debates about other inventions, such as hay, which allowed horses to survive winters, expanding civilization into colder areas. Science writer James Burke explored these connections further, though his claims were seen as oversimplified links. While some ideas about significant inventions were later questioned, including the stirrup's role in warfare, the effects of the printing press and Darwin’s work on society remain widely acknowledged as truly impactful.
Significant Events in the Scientific Inventories
Compiling inventories of important historical events has led to detailed chronologies. The first significant work was Werner Stein’s Kulturfahrplan in 1946, which listed events across various fields. Its popular English version, The Timetables of History, has also sold millions. Specific chronologies for science provide more detailed inventories than general ones. Scholars have created these lists by combining events from multiple sources, identifying many unique entries specific to each chronology. However, the overlap between different sources results in a rapid decrease of commonly referenced events.
Extremely Small Proportions of Scientific Events Are So Important That Everyone Feels Compelled to Include Them
A small number of scientific events are so significant that they are widely recognized and included in discussions. Out of a database of 8,759 events, only 1,560 were termed significant because they were mentioned in more than half of the sources. There are important distinctions between significant events and significant figures, which are used for different purposes in analyzing the history of science. While inventories of significant figures help in understanding the personal contributions over time, they do not illustrate the broader scientific narrative as effectively as the list of events.
To summarize the many events effectively, a selection of 369 central events is highlighted. These central events are essential for understanding the history of science and are chosen from those mentioned in all sources. In many cases, wording has been adjusted to reflect a broader significance, but some well-known titles or concepts are used to represent larger ideas. This approach considers key developments across various scientific fields, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, physics, mathematics, medicine, and technology.
Astronomy experienced early advancements in classification before the Christian era but did not fully understand the universe’s structure until much later. Biology and chemistry also show patterns of slow progress until a notable surge in the 18th century. Physics, reliant on theories and experimentation, saw rapid advancements post-Renaissance, especially due to Newton’s laws.
Mathematics made early strides with significant developments before the 11th century. However, its rate of progress declined after the 19th century. Medicine parallels biology with early advancements leading to a rise in effectiveness in the 20th century, notably with antibiotics. Technology stands apart, as many crucial innovations appeared long before the recorded events of scientific inventories. Overall, the lists reflect a long history of scientific progress, inviting readers to explore these significant breakthroughs tailored to their interests.
Significant Events in the Arts
Creating a list of the most important works in the arts is challenging because greatness in the arts is different from that in the sciences. In the arts, a person's fame arises from their genius and the collection of their works, whereas in the sciences, it comes from significant discoveries, regardless of whether genius played a role. As a result, the methods used to evaluate artists do not work for ranking specific artistic creations.
For example, analyzing how often artworks appear in multiple art histories does not reliably indicate importance. While iconic works like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and Leonardo's Last Supper rank among the most significant, other notable pieces, like Bernini’s Ecstasy of St. Theresa, may not deserve such high status. This highlights the difference between ranking artists, where there is agreement on the top figures, and ranking artworks, where opinions can vary widely.
Art historians face many choices due to the abundance of significant works by each artist. For instance, Rembrandt has a variety of paintings, yet only one, Night Watch, appears in most sources. When examining genres like French Impressionism, many paintings can represent the movement, but not every masterpiece of a great artist shows up consistently in histories.
Furthermore, distinguishing between what is great and what is significant complicates the ranking system. A work like Seurat's Sunday Afternoon can stand out, but this is more about the popularity of its style rather than its overall importance in art history. Shifting trends also affect how works are viewed over time. Ultimately, the focus in the arts is on the artist, not just individual works, making it difficult to create definitive rankings.
In the 1950s, American culture embraced a collection of major human achievements, often highlighted in popular media. People agreed on certain icons, like the Mona Lisa as the greatest painting and Beethoven’s Fifth Symphony as the best musical work. Major inventions were also recognized, with essential contributions from fire and the wheel to gunpowder and the printing press. However, the 1960s changed this perspective. The concept of a singular "greatest" was challenged, especially with the influence of Thomas Kuhn's idea that scientific progress is based on changing paradigms rather than absolute truths. Historian Lynn White proposed that seemingly minor inventions, like the stirrup, had profound historical impacts. This led to debates about other inventions, such as hay, which allowed horses to survive winters, expanding civilization into colder areas. Science writer James Burke explored these connections further, though his claims were seen as oversimplified links. While some ideas about significant inventions were later questioned, including the stirrup's role in warfare, the effects of the printing press and Darwin’s work on society remain widely acknowledged as truly impactful.
Significant Events in the Scientific Inventories
Compiling inventories of important historical events has led to detailed chronologies. The first significant work was Werner Stein’s Kulturfahrplan in 1946, which listed events across various fields. Its popular English version, The Timetables of History, has also sold millions. Specific chronologies for science provide more detailed inventories than general ones. Scholars have created these lists by combining events from multiple sources, identifying many unique entries specific to each chronology. However, the overlap between different sources results in a rapid decrease of commonly referenced events.
Extremely Small Proportions of Scientific Events Are So Important That Everyone Feels Compelled to Include Them
A small number of scientific events are so significant that they are widely recognized and included in discussions. Out of a database of 8,759 events, only 1,560 were termed significant because they were mentioned in more than half of the sources. There are important distinctions between significant events and significant figures, which are used for different purposes in analyzing the history of science. While inventories of significant figures help in understanding the personal contributions over time, they do not illustrate the broader scientific narrative as effectively as the list of events.
To summarize the many events effectively, a selection of 369 central events is highlighted. These central events are essential for understanding the history of science and are chosen from those mentioned in all sources. In many cases, wording has been adjusted to reflect a broader significance, but some well-known titles or concepts are used to represent larger ideas. This approach considers key developments across various scientific fields, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, physics, mathematics, medicine, and technology.
Astronomy experienced early advancements in classification before the Christian era but did not fully understand the universe’s structure until much later. Biology and chemistry also show patterns of slow progress until a notable surge in the 18th century. Physics, reliant on theories and experimentation, saw rapid advancements post-Renaissance, especially due to Newton’s laws.
Mathematics made early strides with significant developments before the 11th century. However, its rate of progress declined after the 19th century. Medicine parallels biology with early advancements leading to a rise in effectiveness in the 20th century, notably with antibiotics. Technology stands apart, as many crucial innovations appeared long before the recorded events of scientific inventories. Overall, the lists reflect a long history of scientific progress, inviting readers to explore these significant breakthroughs tailored to their interests.
Significant Events in the Arts
Creating a list of the most important works in the arts is challenging because greatness in the arts is different from that in the sciences. In the arts, a person's fame arises from their genius and the collection of their works, whereas in the sciences, it comes from significant discoveries, regardless of whether genius played a role. As a result, the methods used to evaluate artists do not work for ranking specific artistic creations.
For example, analyzing how often artworks appear in multiple art histories does not reliably indicate importance. While iconic works like Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and Leonardo's Last Supper rank among the most significant, other notable pieces, like Bernini’s Ecstasy of St. Theresa, may not deserve such high status. This highlights the difference between ranking artists, where there is agreement on the top figures, and ranking artworks, where opinions can vary widely.
Art historians face many choices due to the abundance of significant works by each artist. For instance, Rembrandt has a variety of paintings, yet only one, Night Watch, appears in most sources. When examining genres like French Impressionism, many paintings can represent the movement, but not every masterpiece of a great artist shows up consistently in histories.
Furthermore, distinguishing between what is great and what is significant complicates the ranking system. A work like Seurat's Sunday Afternoon can stand out, but this is more about the popularity of its style rather than its overall importance in art history. Shifting trends also affect how works are viewed over time. Ultimately, the focus in the arts is on the artist, not just individual works, making it difficult to create definitive rankings.