Origin of Science and the Journey it has taken

You are currently viewing Origin of Science and the Journey it has taken

How did Science, as a body of knowledge, come into existence? Science comes from the Latin Scientia, meaning knowledge. While historians have traced the origins of science to Greece and prior to that in Babylon and Egypt, here we are more interested in understanding 2 aspects: a) How did the unique attributes of science (the scientific method) come to form and b) How is it that it became one coherent body of knowledge.

When an individual learns something, it usually arises from a need. As was the case in the Paleolithic age, where tools were made and rafts and canoes built to serve a purpose. This was science too, but it didn’t form into a body of knowledge. The knowledge was passed on from one generation to the next. Similar was the case with conquests that happened prior to the Greeks. Here too equipment and military technology was used in abundance, but only manuals were written which enumerated the practical aspects of making them. There was no deliberation on ideas, theories or principles, therefore the scope for science to develop as a body of knowledge was limited.[1]

Some authors argue that commerce and trade was instrumental in building science into a body of knowledge. Not only was there a need to build ships, develop navigation techniques, refine mathematical knowledge, but there was also the need to understand nature. For example: how to travel long distances, without some understanding and predictive ability on weather conditions?

The next pertinent question is: can only one reason contribute to the formation of a whole body of knowledge? There was probably a fortunate fusion of several conducive factors, which were not directed by anybody, but seemed to build up over centuries, to a grand collation of methods and ideas to form “Science”. That is, the knowledge always existed, waiting to be discovered and naturally form into a body of knowledge, which eventually got the name of “Science”.  Modern science has its roots in Greece and with this in mind we state the following:

These conducive factors can be seen as:

  1. The healthy dialogue between the Greeks and foreigners, when trade and conquests happened. (Roughly 500 BC to 100 BC) ‘Knowledge exchange’ furthered ideas. This in part explains why China could not make a foray into Modern Science like Europe did (rest of Europe had received translations of Greek treatises), though it had several scientific accomplishments to its credit. China had limited opportunity for such interaction[2];
  2. The Greek culture of oral disputation and heterodoxy (as rulers didn’t pay heed to the philosophers)[3]
  3. The Greek knowledge was translated during its many phases of travelling through the Arab world and finally reaching the other European countries (12th and 13th century AD). In translation, a treatise may have been simplified; select parts of the treatise may have been translated or the entire treatise faithfully translated.[4] So, knowledge may have been transformed to some extent;
  4. The Arabs not only translated Greek works but also used that knowledge and they themselves indulged in much experimental and mathematical work. Jabir ibn Hayyan, 8th century Baghdad polymath, wrote extensively on alchemy. Infact scholars reckon that the origins of modern experimental science lie in alchemical work.[5] One other example, to show the relevance of alchemy in experimental work, is the episode when the King of Poland (18th century) locked an alchemist in his laboratory so that he could make gold. The alchemist failed and made porcelain instead![6] The experiments in alchemy clearly produced useful results;
  5. Once the Greek knowledge came to other parts of Europe, specifically Aristotle’s philosophy, several intellectuals from different parts came together to discuss this philosophy. The famous universities became the places for “reasoning and analysis” (Universities of Paris, Oxford, Bologna) and natural philosophy, specifically Aristotle’s philosophy, became the foundation for the curriculum[7].

When we see the Scientific Revolution and the works of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler and Newton forming the foundation of what we know as “Science” today, we can clearly see that it could happen because of what happened prior to that (in the factors enumerated above). Without a basic foundation, how could there have been progress and building up of such a vast body of knowledge? It could only have happened over a large period of time and with several contributors, over centuries of intellectual deliberation and hands-on testing.

The Scientific Method or Attributes of Science

Greece comprised of 5 schools of knowledge in Athens – a) Established by Plato, b) Established by Aristotle, c) Atomism, d) Stoics and e) Skeptics apart from the mathematical school in Alexandria. While the former 5 schools developed knowledge comprehensively, using their own philosophies to explain the constitution of the world, the mathematical school (associated with names such as Ptolemy and Euclid), engaged mostly in mathematical abstractions.[8] Some authors argue that coming together of both was what happened during the Scientific Revolution, which was the beginning of modern science. In these schools, we see the early foundation of modern science:

  1. They used principles, rooted in the real world. They gathered empirical evidence from everyday life to support those principles;
  2. In the mathematical school, the point of beginning an investigation was say real phenomena such as, musical sound, light rays or planetary trajectories and use of deductive geometry to understand these phenomena. This led further to abstract reasoning and identifying mathematical regularities but no practical application.

We can see a gradual progression of knowledge building up to the exact sciences, which we explain further below:

Greek and Arabic translations to Latin (Greek knowledge reaches rest of Europe)

Aristotelian philosophy introduced in 13th century

Natural Philosophy based on Aristotle’s works (curriculum in European Universities)

Exact Sciences

The university curriculum included natural philosophy, logic, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. For more than 400 years, this type of learning prevailed with a focus on reason, analysis, spirit of inquiry and probing.[9] At the end of the period, Aristotle’s philosophy was replaced by more scientific ideas and methodology.

Within this period certain developments occurred: In the 14th century intellectuals started questioning “self-evident propositions and metaphysically (beyond human sense perception) demonstrated truths”. The trend became to consider hypothetical and probable arguments. There was skepticism and a there was a reliance on empiricism (William Ockham in early 14th century). That causal relations can be obtained by inference was challenged and a gradual progression towards “only direct observation could provide knowledge of causal relations”.[10] While observation was key during this period, there was no effort to understand the underlying causes or principles.

This was one step in the direction of forming a scientific method, where observation formed a critical component of the process.

Interestingly, there was a belief that, what was not within the ambit of experience (which meant experience of the senses), was considered “transcending experience and senses” and fell into the purview of faith, revelation and theology. We see here a branching off – Philosophy and Theology moved apart. The separation occurred on account of:

  1. What can be demonstrated
  2. What cannot be demonstrated as it can’t be apprehended and is beyond the senses, space and time (which was also posited in the Ancient Indian Thought)

Which leads us to ask a question here, before we come back to the journey of science. Does philosophy, science and beyond science (realm of unknown), lie on the same continuum but humanity has chosen to define and confine science to certain limits (for the present). This may have originated out of a fear that ‘the unknown’ can be used as an excuse to not explore ‘the known’ enough, leading to an intellectual lethargy, stagnation and lack of progress in the material/sense realm.

The vast majority can grasp science and the knowable world and this is the single most argument for giving science its due place and definition.

Back to the science journey: Copernicus, came next and while not refuting the importance of “hypothesis”; he added “framing a true hypothesis”, which meant not just a) A phenomena was more probable than another or b) Protecting one’s view of a phenomena[11]. He presented the heliocentric view and also earth’s diurnal and annual motion, which he believed to be true. He believed what was a hypothesis should also be physically true.

This attitude prevailed amongst those who followed and those who became the leading luminaries of the Scientific Revolution, laying the foundation for how science was to be approached. While Descartes focused on reducing the physical universe to mathematical laws (which was a mixture of 2 ancient Greek approaches, schools in Athens and Alexandria, as mentioned earlier); Newton took it even further. What was considered as occult (hidden properties or unknown causes of something that manifests) was what he sought to investigate[12]. For example: If objects fall, something causes them to fall, which requires further investigation. Just because gravity cannot be physically seen, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or that magic causes an object to fall.

Newton arrived at a set of principles from phenomena that he observed and revealed how certain results follow from such principles. Newton thus employed a systematic scientific technique of observation, hypothesis, prediction and formulation of laws.[13] Thus the birth of science as we know it; with its systematic investigation and pursuit of knowledge. Anything that lent itself to this kind of pursuit, naturally fell within the ambit of science – be it astronomy, alchemy leading up to chemistry or magic cures being understood now as a science called medicine.

Experimental Philosophy[14]

We saw, moving forward, in 17th century and beginning of 18th century, the onset of experimental philosophy or practical physics. The ideas of Newton, Boyle and others were demonstrated through apparatus and lectures to all parts of society. The first course in experimental physics at a university was in 1675 in Leiden. Such lectures and demonstrations were given in the universities by entrepreneurs as well as instrument makers. Soon these lectures and apparatus were accompanied with a printed syllabus. Microscopes, telescopes, air pumps, astronomical apparatus, optical instruments, cranes and many more came into vogue. Those who gave lectures started publishing textbooks, pamphlets and catalogues related to their lectures, instruments and other scientific topics. Many of these lecturers became instrument makers.

We see therefore the emergence of measurement and instrumentation in the next phase; example: electric and magnetic forces were identified and measured by Augustin Coulomb in the 18th century. In the 18th century we also saw chemistry forming a significant part of science through its experimental nature. Example: observing the role of gases in chemical reactions.

Further Developments

From this point on we see development in all fields related to industry, as a response to the Industrial Revolution. The practical demonstrations of the Industrial Revolution, gave an impetus to the way science was approached. For example: metallurgy developed to supply alloy steels required for machinery and construction. While the scientific method remained, there was combining of different branches of science to support industry. There was also challenging of older theories based on more rigorous application of that scientific method. Example: Special Theory of Relativity of Einstein challenged Newton’s principles.

One school of thought firmly believes much of science was formed as a result of the contributions of workers, artisans and farmers (who were the real “doers”). For example: Is it necessary to study in an institution to learn how to make glass? The principles, how to apply different temperatures, which metals to add and what type of tools are to be used can be learnt from a person whose profession is to make glass. But it has been recognized since that, doing science as well as a grasp of the principles are both essential for a thorough understanding of science. For both, we owe a debt to all the contributors of science from the times of the Greeks to the workers down the ages; luminaries of the Scientific Revolution and Scientists of modern times.


[1] G. Snooks, The Rise (and Fall?) of Modern Science: A New Strategic Explanation, 2020

[2] H.F.Cohen, Greek Foundations, Chinese Contrasts (How Modern Science Came into the World)

[3] L. Pyenson, Comparative History of Science, 2002

[4] Ibid – footnote 2

[5] J. Delbourgo, The Knowing World: A New Global History of Science, 2019

[6] Unesco.org, Chemistry How it All Started, Michal Meyer, 2011

[7] E. Grant, Reflections of a Troglodyte Historian of Science, 2012

[8] H.F.Cohen, Greek Foundations, Chinese Contrasts (How Modern Science Came into the World)

[9] E. Grant, Reflections of a Troglodyte Historian of Science, 2012

[10] E.Grant, Late Medieval Thought, Copernicus and the Scientific Revolution, 1962

[11] ibid

[12] ibid

[13] G. Snooks, The Rise (and Fall?) of Modern Science: A New Strategic Explanation, 2020

[14] G.L’E. Turner, Scientific Toys, 1987