Elizabeth L. Eisenstein -- The Printing Revolution in Early Modern Europe =========================================================================== The sections of this book that interested me the most were the sections on the effect of printing on the scientific revolution. Eisenstein argues that the scientific revolution either would not have happened or would have been impeded without printing. And, she prevents plenty of examples to make this a convincing claim. In general the ability to publish and print affected the progress of science in the following ways: - Tools -- Scientific research was enabled and facilitated by printed materials. For example, logarithm tables were needed to enable astronomers to make the accurate measurements and observations needed so that they could compare results. - Communicating results -- Printing enabled scientists to publish and distribute their results. This enabled them to compare and discuss their results, then to subject those results to verification and to tests of consistency with proposed theory and claims. All this enabled scientists and their avid fans to revise and correct their claims and the observations that they recorded in support of those claims in ways and at a speed that had never before been possible. Eisenstein, in effect, is arguing that the scientific revolution would not have happened when it did, if it were not for the rapid increase in the availability of printing and the ability of scientists and those who support them to publish their results and materials. It's especially fascinating because Eisenstein does not ignore the need for explaining motivations. In particular, her account makes clear how the profit motive played a significant part in the drive to publish scientific materials. She even describes how the listing of banned materials in the Catholic church's Edict or Index of 1616 and 1633 was used to promote published books and to drive sales. Excitement drives sales and profits. One of the astonishing aspects of this story about the effects of printing on science and the scientific revolution is how modern it seems, perhaps more modern than we, in the U.S., are today. Apparently, in spite of the religious conflicts, they in the 17th and 18th centuries, were able to resolve the issues around a sun- centered solar system and an earth-centered solar system. But, in our age, in the U.S., at least, we are still arguing about creationism. We actually have nationally know politicians who advocate teaching creationism in U.S schools, along side of the theory of evolution. For those of you in more enlightened countries, please forgive me for being obsessed over this. What interests me about Eisenstein's account of the effect of printing on the scientific revolution in particular is how it can help us understand the effects of recent changes in communication technology the progress of science and the development of technology, today. For example: - Researchers can now make huge volumes of research data available on public (or not so public) data bases. That means that some scientists can concentrate on analysis rather than data collection and that the amount and range of data that they have to work with is potentially huge. - Researchers can make their results public and available to others doing research in the same or related fields almost immediately and at low cost. That enables these researchers to compare results, to criticize findings, and to offer suggestions and ideas leading to improved experiments, results, and findings. - Collaboration -- Scientists can work together even from widely separated locations. There are several ways that this provides leverage. First, and most obviously, it enables teamwork among workers who may not be able to travel to a common location. And, in instances where equipment and facilities are required, it enables a scientist to stay where her/his equipment is and still work as part of a team. And, this technological and communications boost to scientific research and technological development has only just begun. I suspect that we are still learning how to exploit the following particular aspects of communication technology: - Self-publishing -- It is now extremely easy and cheap to publish your own book. Search the Web for "print on demand" and you will find links to Web sites where you can upload your copy/content, create and cover and title page, and make your book available so that you and others can order single or multiple copies. - Blogs and Wikis -- Although different in significant ways, both of these Web application or Web site styles lower the barrier for creating content on the Web. In most cases, no technical, Internet/Web knowledge is required, though typing skills are helpful. See the entries for "Blog" and "Wiki" at Wikipedia for details about these two Web app styles. And, by the way, not only is the *use* of these Blogs and Wikis possible without detailed know-how, but, in addition, there are now software packages and Web hosting services that enable even non-techies to create Web sites that implement Blogs and Wikis. - CMS -- Content management systems are yet another Web application style that supports the creation of Web content. What's special about CMS is the control it provides over the process of creating, reviewing, editing, and approving (for visibility and publishing) content, and the control over who is allowed to do what. We are a long way past the printing revolution, and I have not yet even mentioned cloud computing, which is likely to put collaboration (or wasting time, take your pick) into hyper-drive. So, we need to ask ourselves whether now things are really much that different. Are we experiencing a revolution that is as dramatic as the one described by Eisenstein? Or, are we in the midst of a more incremental change. Remember that Darwin was receiving snail-mail twice daily. Yes, email is a bit faster than that, but when you are as determined as Darwin was, does that increase in speed make much difference? And, if so, what sort of difference? If you believe that electronic communication forms like email will make significant differences in how we work, the ways we think, and what we know, then you will need to answer questions about whether mobile phone texting and instant messaging will also make significant differences? But why stop there? Will we do things differently when everyone has a Web cam on their computer and we are also routinely doing n-way video conferencing? Or, ... will we just use more time? Will we spend more time on our social networks (whatever those are) than we did before we had anything *but* paper? And, will we spend more time with our devices than we do with the work they were meant to save us from? 09/02/2011 .. vim:ft=rst:fo+=a: