Ritka szerencsés pillanat, amikor egy magasan kvalifikált szépíró és a nyitott tudományos gondolkodás egy személyben találkozik – az Alvajárók ilyen pillanat eredménye. Végig lenyűgözött az a lelkesültség, ahogy Koestler a természetfilozófia világát kezelte a babilóniai asztronómusoktól egészen a newton-i szintézisig. Ez a lelkesültség éppúgy lemérhető Kepler iránt érzett vonzalmán, mint Galilei-kritikáján – az volt a benyomásom, hogy ilyen éllel csak azt tudjuk bírálni, aki már-már személyes ismerősünk. Ez a helyenként lírai hév nagyon megkapó, mert jelzi, Koestler mély szerelemmel szereti a gondolkodás bátorságát, ami a tárgyalt elmékre oly igen jellemző – és ami engem is elkápráztat, mert alig hiszem, hogy Isten (akit most mint munkahipotézist emlegetek) olyan világot teremtett volna, amit minél tüzetesebben megismerünk, annál távolabb kerülünk a teremtőjétől. Lássuk be, egy ilyen teremtett világ elég rossz vicc lenne – egy igazi patkányfogó.

Másrészt Koestler az igazi szintetizáló gondolkodók mintapéldánya. Arra törekszik, hogy az elemekből egészt hozzon létre, egyetlen gigantikus felépítményt. Persze az effajta építmények részleteikben esetleg vitathatóak, mégis lenyűgözőek, mert öröm továbbgondolni őket. A koestler-i szintézis bőven használ analógiákat – ilyen például a biológiai evolúció és a tudományos gondolkodás párba állítása. Előbbi is számos zsákutca, megtorpanás és tömeges fajkihalás után jutott el oda, ahova, és a természettudomány esetében sincs ez másképp. A nagy görög „kognitív forradalom” után, ami elhozta Püthagoraszt, Arisztarkhoszt, a heliocentrikus világképet és az atomokat, az agy behúzta a kéziféket, visszatáncolt és leragadt Platónnál meg Arisztotelésznél. Innentől kétezer éves böjt következett, amiből csak Kopernikusz, majd Kepler és Galilei, végül Newton szabadított ki minket. Ez a folyamat időbeliségében gyanúsan egyszerre zajlott a reformációval, ami újabb analógiára csábítja Koestlert, aki a két eseményt ugyanarra az igényre vezeti vissza: a megcsontosodott dogmatikával való leszámolás vágyára. Ugyanakkor az író tagadja, hogy tudomány és vallás elhidegülése törvényszerű lett volna, szerinte inkább hibás személyes döntésekre (elsősorban Galilei döntéseire, hogy pontosak legyünk) vezethető vissza. Ez Koestler megközelítésében szerencsétlen szakítás volt, hiszen amíg a XVI-XVII. században vallás és tudomány többé-kevésbé azonos nyelvet beszéltek (a jezsuiták közül kerültek ki a korszak legjobb csillagászai), addig a szakadás után nyelvük és univerzumuk szinte összevethetetlenül elkülönült, így fel is adták annak esélyét, hogy érdemben tanuljanak egymástól.

A harmadik analógia, amivel Koestler dolgozik, értelemszerűen a múlt és a jelen között állítható fel. Az író az ötvenes évek közepéből küldi hozzánk utószavát, abból a korból, amit alaposan meghatározott a félelem, hogy bolygónk atombomba által fogja megöngyilkolni enmagát. Ennek fényében értelmezendő az óva intés: Ember, vigyázz a tudományos zsákutcákra! Ne hidd, hogy feltalálni valamit önmagában bármit is jelent – keress hozzá koncepciót is, egy célt, ami meghatároz. És folyamatosan, újra és újra vizsgáld felül a dogmáidat, hogy nem megszokásból ragaszkodsz-e hozzájuk.

Szóval nagy könyv, csodás könyv. Nem klasszikus értelemben vett természettudomány, a szónak abban az értelmében, hogy bár akad benne bolygópálya-modellezés és némi matematika, mégsem ezeken van a hangsúly – sokkal inkább magán a tudományos gondolkodáson, a folyamaton, amikor az elme szépen, lassan, kínlódva lebontja az elődei által épített mentális falakat, és a törmelékből új lakhelyet épít magának. És ez jó így, mert amíg előbbi elem Einstein és a kvantumfizikusok óta veszített aktualitásából, addig ez utóbbi örök. És az örök könyvek azok bizony a legjobb könyvek.

( )

I think I read 2 of Koestler's bks. This must've been one of them b/c I remember the subject matter but I reckon it's possible that there's another Koestler bk w/ a long section on Kepler (as this one has). Anyway, in some respects, this must've been an important bk to me b/c it wd've been one of the 1st I wd've read on 'heretics' - ie: people persecuted by Christian Gangstas for having a mind & using it for something other than Christian hegemony. Alas, this is the only bk I've read in my astronomy section. Obviously, I 'need' to catch up on the subject! But, then, who can see the stars anymore? I live in the city.

Strangely, I don't remember being that impressed w/ this. Maybe it was too drily scientific for me. Maybe I just didn't get it. In retrospect it seems like a fascinating subject. Then, though, I was more interested in art & literature - so it's probably remarkable that I slogged thru a 600 page bk of this nature. Looking at it now I realize I shd add it to the read-again-if you-discover-you're-immortal category. ( )

La storia della cosmologia di Koestler è piena di informazioni ben studiate raccolte in una storia così ben raccontata che sembra una buona "fiction", un romanzo, appunto. Per lo più è un resoconto storico dell'opera di Copernico, Keplero e Galileo, ma le prime sezioni ambientano perfettamente la narrazione descrivendo l'opera sorprendente dei loro predecessori come Tolomeo e Pitagora.

Koestler fornisce analisi psicologiche plausibili degli osservatori del cielo mentre mettono insieme faticosamente e in modo irregolare le loro teorie, con un piede nel passato e uno nel futuro, circondati da caos e intrighi, cercando di salvare la loro vita, le famiglie e la loro mente, spesso inciampando sulla verità per errore, o dimenticandola o ignorandola.

Dopo aver letto le loro opere nell'originale, Koestler smonta miti e sfumature teoriche e infilza gran parte degli apocrifi che hanno contribuito alle leggende che circondano questi giganti della scienza. Scrive molto bene anche sul rapporto mutevole tra religione e scienza nel corso dei secoli.

Tutto sommato, decenni dopo la pubblicazione, il libro rimane una boccata d'aria fresca. Lo consiglio vivamente a chiunque sia interessato alla cosmologia, alla matematica, all'alchimia, al medioevo o alla storia e filosofia della scienza o della religione. ( )

Il testo di Arthur Koestler, scrittore e filosofo ungherese, è un noto saggio sulla storia della scienza. Il nucleo del testo ripercorre le vite di Copernico, Brahe, Keplero e Galilei. L’A. le narra in modo suggestivo con dovizia di particolari, ricostruendo di questi il carattere, i sentimenti, le passioni, le debolezze. Essi si stagliano così con tutta la loro umanità sullo sfondo del contesto storico, politico e religioso, in cui si trovarono a vivere. I "sonnambuli" sono proprio loro, gli artefici della rivoluzione scientifica del XVII secolo, per opera dei quali in poco più di un secolo la concezione della scienza e il suo rapporto col sapere umano furono trasformati radicalmente. Collegando l'indagine scientifica con le esperienze di vita di ognuno di loro, l'autore mostra che essi non furono infallibili macchine pensanti, ma prima di tutto persone, con un volto e una personalità, che, profondamente condizionate dalle concezioni religiose e metafisiche, si avventurano sul confine misterioso del nuovo, camminando non su una strada maestra, liscia e senza inciampi, ma piuttosto su un terreno incerto e scivoloso, guidati da improvvise intuizioni, in una faticosa ricerca, quasi a tastoni, piena di cadute e di ritorni indietro. La precedente esperienza dell'umanità, cui è dedicata la prima parte dell’opera, era fondata su una visione unitaria dell'universo, dove la religione aveva contribuito al progredire della conoscenza umana. Nel XVII secolo non solo si impone la separazione tra religione e scienza, ma il sapere stesso si frantuma: si sviluppano in modo isolato diversi rami di conoscenza e di comportamento, che guidano ognuno a rigide ortodossie, a specializzazioni unilaterali, a ossessioni collettive. Nello stesso tempo si assiste però a "riconciliazioni impreviste, a nuove sintesi nate da una frammentazione apparentemente senza speranza". In questa mescolanza si è creata la visione dell'universo nella quale ancor oggi ci muoviamo. Il testo di Koestler è noto, infine, per una interpretazione del caso Galileo che segue da vicino al tesi di Duhem, ovvero l’idea che Bellarmino e i teologi avessero una visione scientifico-epistemologica più profonda di quella dello scienziato pisano, e che lo scienziato pisano avesse invece una visione più corretta di loro nelle questioni esegetiche. Sebbene attraente, tale tesi risulta oggi poco fondata. Il volume è ricco di note bibliografiche e si presta a diversi livelli di lettura: uno più diretto, adatto ad un pubblico ampio; un’altro, più adatto allo studioso specialista, che può ripercorrere, attraverso le note, l'itinerario di ricerca compiuto dall'autore.

ARTHUR KOESTLER
Trad. di Massimo Giacometti
Jaca Book, Milano 1982, pp. 540 - Anno di edizione originale: 1959
Disf.org - Scienza e Fede

Questa Edizione luglio 2021 In lettura

A heavy subject, but very interesting. A mixture of history, cosmology/astronomy, and physics. I never was good at physics back in school, due to whatever reason (mainly the way the teachers explained it, I guess). Astronomy was an interest of mine, but without all the mathematics and what not. History, too, but again, circumstances weren't always favourable. Or, in other words, once out of school, I became more interested in certain subjects at which I wasn't always successful in school.

In any case, this book was a sort of blind purchase: I never checked reviews or other info prior to buying it. But the blurb looked interesting and the shopkeeper told me several other customers had really liked the book.

Arthur Koestler has - or rather, had - a way with words. His style is quite fluent, eloquent (if I may write so). This is no fast-paced thriller, it's best to take your time to explore the many centuries of exploring the Solar System, from /- 600 BC until the 17th century. Or, from a.o. the Babylonians until Newton, with in-between famous chaps like Ptolemy, Plato, Aristotle, Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. Keywords: heliocentric cosmology, geocentric cosmology.

Koestler presents a nice and detailed overview of how man's view on the cosmos changed from gods to a scientific approach (though that one came quite late). The book also tells how at some point in history, the perception was better - more accurate - than it was several centuries later, when the Church (or religion) was very adamant about Holy Scripture and how one could not go against that. Related to that: the trial against Galileo, for example.

You can also read how e.g. Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo found out by accident (whilst concentrating on other matters, other influences) about Earth's and other planets' rotation around the sun (and not the other way around). How one invented spheres to describe the movements of the planets, how another wrote of spokes, and how much later magnetism came into play.

Of course, it's not all about those researches and findings of the various scientists (in whatever age they lived). The book also tells about the struggles, the hurdles and what not - especially - Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo had to face. But also how Galileo saw himself as THE chosen one with regards to the cosmos, how he claimed to have found the solution to problem x or y, while it were other researches who had done all the work, which Galileo never thought of examining and continued stubbornly his own work. This sort of matches - as far as I remember - the Galileo I read about in [a:Kim Stanley Robinson|1858|Kim Stanley Robinson|https://d.gr-assets.com/authors/1376955089p2/1858.jpg]'s book, [b:Galileo's Dream|8864105|Galileo's Dream|Kim Stanley Robinson|https://d.gr-assets.com/books/1333102668s/8864105.jpg|6579805] (see my review here).

Copernicus is described as an introvert, one with a low self-esteem, very obedient towards authority. He also - pardon my French - lacked the balls to stand up for himself. When offered help and advice, he remained stubborn and didn't publish his findings. For a long time he clung unto the principles of Aristotle, who was partly responsible for the dark ages in cosmology, and didn't want to alter his views and theory.

Isaac Newton is mentioned only briefly - certainly compared to the more detailed accounts about Corpernicus, Kepler, and Galileo - and mainly his findings and further explorations are discussed. Koestler wrote that there have been many books already about the man's life, that it wasn't really necessary to include such details, thus better to focus on his work. And so you'll read how he took elements from Kepler and from Galileo, and improved their examinations.

In the Epilogue, Koestler throws in a large chunk of physics and some philosophy, but also looks back at the evolution of cosmology. And how the separation of religion and science sort of impoverished both and made our view on the cosmos and the world a rather cold one, since the workings come across as mechanistic; there's no god or other being to keep the system in place, to maintain it now and then (a perception people did have many centuries ago). Religion and science don't complement each other any more (unless you're open-minded to find that it's not one or the other, of course, that each is, one way or another, right).

Throughout the book (and sometimes in the Notes section), you'll see several extracts (also very eloquently written, of course - very interesting if you're into languages) from the works, letters, ... of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. The whole is (fortunately) enhanced with chronological tables (summarizing each part of the book, or each historical era, featuring names, dates, short info), drawings/illustrations, and maps.

In short: A very worthwhile synthesis of 2,000 years of cosmology (through European eyes) and how man's view changed massively, thanks to several bright minds, and despite the struggle with the Church. There's also enough food for thought for years to come.
It has sparked my interest to read more about the subject. In due time, of course.

P.S.: An interesting book for amateurs of Space Operas (SF) as well, obviously. ;-) ( )