John A Schuster (2012) ‘The European Birth of Modern Science: An Exercise in Macro and Comparative History’ (Essay Review of H.F. Cohen, How Modern Science Came into the World), Metascience 21 657-665. Posted here is the extended version, roughly 1000 words longer. Additional passages, not in the Metascience version, appear in blue.
Appeared online in Journal of Historical Biography 5 (Spring 2009): 48-83. Extended critique of Clarke on Descartes’ early scientific career foreshadowed arguments in my Descartes-agonistes (2013). This review should be compared with more sympathetic approach to other parts of Des Clarke’s legacy in Schuster paper ‘Did Descartes Teach a Philosophy of Science or Pursue Strategies of Natural Philosophical Systematization’ (2017), also posted in research section.
My remarks at Glebe Books, Sydney, August 2008 to launch Ross Honeywill’s book Lamarck’s Evolution which includes a great deal of material on Australian neo-Lamarckian molecular geneticist Ted Steele’s scientific career and the infamous ‘Steele’ affair at the University of Wollongong (attempted peremptory dismissal for whistleblowing on soft marking of fee paying foreign students)…read on if you care to understand how Australian (or indeed most Anglosphere) universities work and about Steele’s remarkable career.
J. A. Schuster: What was Early 17th Century Physico-Mathematics, for Quadrennial Conference of the US, UK and Canadian History of Science Societies, Keble College Oxford, July 2008: Double Session on Connecting Disciplines: Mathematics, Natural Philosophy and Reason in the Early-Modern Era, organised by Stephen Gaukroger and John Schuster.
J.A. Schuster, From Natural Philosophy to Sciences: Transformations, Not Ruptures in Early Modern Knowledge Networks –the Disputed Case of the Early Royal Society: Conference of ARC Network of Early European Researchers [NEER] July 2007. Note: This item had over 19700 hits on the previous iteration of this website. I might very well suspect why this was the case, but I could not possibly comment.
Penultimate version of published chapter: J.A. Schuster, “‘Waterworld’: Descartes’ Vortical Celestial Mechanics–A Gambit in the Natural Philosophical Contest of the Early Seventeenth Century”, pp.35-79 in Peter Anstey and John Schuster (eds.) The Science of Nature in the Seventeenth Century: Patterns of Change in Early Modern Natural Philosophy (Springer, 2005) (pages in published version entered in brackets)
Penultimate version, prior to translation into Italian for publication as Chapter 27 in Daniel Garber, ed., L’Età della Rivoluzione Scientifica (Vol 5. of Storia della Scienza Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2002) pp. 337-357. Intended title in English was, ‘The Organisation of Knowledge: The Grand Programs of Natural Philosophy and the Rise of Disciplinary Differentiation by the End of the Seventeenth Century’ The Italian version contains some changes and additions and should be consulted.
The penultimate pre-publication version of J.A.Schuster, ‘Descartes Opticien: The Construction of the Law of Refraction and The Manufacture of its Physical Rationales 1618-1629′, in Stephen Gaukroger, John A. Schuster and John Sutton (eds.) Descartes’ Natural Philosophy: Optics, Mechanics and Cosmology (Routledge, London, 2000), pp. 258-312. Final pagination inserted in brackets throughout.Section 5.2 mentions that the argument concerning the timing and manner of Descartes’ discovery of the (cosecant) law of refraction of light can be supported by the reconstruction of the genealogy of Descartes’ lens theory in the period 1627-37. That work is in Appendix 1 in my Descartes Agonistes—Physico-Mathematics, Method and Corpuscular Mechanism 1618-33 (2013) titled: ‘Descartes, Mydorge and Beeckman: The Evolution of Cartesian Lens Theory 1627-1637’ pp. 603-619.