Comments: 6
Exactly!
BrokenTune 3 years ago
I've just finished this part (Ch. 3) and am both puzzled and ... miffed ... at what I've read. And where did Boettger fit in other than as a name-drop? And dare I say that his slap-dash description of Boettger's "research" into porcelain-making differs widely from those that I've come across when visiting Dresden and Meissen?
Not you alone. That whole part reads as if he only put it in for the sensationalist value of the "imprisoned scientist" (i.e., "enchained sorcerer") aspect. I'd been waiting for something of the sort ever since he'd first mentioned gold and the philosophers' stone.
Mike Finn 3 years ago
Not having read the book -and with these comments I’m never going to- it seems to me that this guy fails to understand the role of imagination in science. He seems like someone who thinks science is about solving the puzzle of the universe by breaking its code. So imagination is a cheat, a short cut that alters assumptions and introduces bias in dealing with the fundamental data. Bias is inevitable. We an only find what we look for. We can only see what we can imagine. The puzzle may not change but the puzzle is so immense and complex that our collective imagination needs to expand if we are ever even to see the puzzle, never mind solve it.

So, this non-scientist who has only the most basic math, is going to shut up now.
BrokenTune 3 years ago
I have a feeling you're right about his under-appreciation for the role of imagination.
And please don't shut up. You're making a much better argument of a point than Kean did in the 81 pages I've read. I'm not even sure that Kean had any point.
Tannat 3 years ago
It's also interesting to see what someone has gleaned from our various comments without having seen the text in question, too.