1. In what way(s) are the acquisition of knowledge in America (New World) different compared to Europe or Asia (Old World)?
2. Why were so few, or no, contributions made in the physical sciences by colonial Americans?
3. Please read Boorstin's the quote on p. 168... comment?
29 comments:
1: In America the aquiring of knowledge was far different from the old world Europe and Asia for the simple reason that learning in America was not for the sake of learning but for solving problems when they arose. They were not academic and bookish as Boorstin describes the Europeans. The knowledge was also sometimes made up for the early reason to bring in settlers to America and to have them buy land. The knowledge cultivated in America were mostly for every day practical purposes and not for academic reasons.
2: There were few physical science because America was only developing and therefore the knowledge was developing with it. There were more concern in the government, argriculture, and religion rather than making physical science advancements.
3: I think that the quote is basically showing that people try so hard to understand everything but its not possible to understand everything. Its possible to understand most science and such but its impossible to just have one reason and one difinition for the "human concept"
1. Pursuit of knowledge in the New World was referred to by Boorstin as "Natural History," and pursuit of knowledge in the Old World was referred to as "Physical Science." Natural history and physical science differed in many respects. Firstly, physical science was only available to a select few. There were few in Europe who could understand the theories of great chemists and physicists such as Newton, and fewer who could actually conduct research in the field of physical science and contribute to it. This was because to able to function in physical science research, or to even understand complex theories such as those of Newton, one first needed a prerequisite bank of knowledge on the subject. Natural history, on the other hand, is available to everyone because it is simply the fine science of cataloguing the new things of America. Anybody could be a natural historian, without any base knowledge. These contrasting means of obtaining knowledge are parallel with the contrasting views of truth. In England truth was determined by prior knowledge, and thus so is physical science. In America truth was determined by self-evidence, and thus so is natural history. Natural history makes statements of experience. Physical science, though derived from experience, makes theories.
2. Physical science was only feasible in a fully developed civilization such as in England. This was because physical science requires spare time aside from time used to maintain one's livelihood, and it requires an extensive library of prior theories. American colonists had neither spare time, nor a knowledge base upon which to build.
3. Perhaps there isn't a "bridge...between multiplicity and unity." There's so many things that exist, known and unknown, how can there ever be any theory that encompasses all these things. The quote goes on to ask, "what is energy?" This takes a Platonic view and questions the existence of all we perceive. Since we define things that exist as things we can perceive in some fashion, yet energy can't be perceived we only know of it by its effects on tangible things such as light on a wall, or warmth in the air. Yet it definitely exists, since we base our world on it. So to bring this back to American history, if things like energy can exist without perception, then why not knowledge? Perhaps, like energy, knowledge can be something that is its own phenomenon, rather than one defined by our senses.
1. In America, the aquisition of knowledge was simply not a priority. Although Boorstin states, "To enlarge the country and to populate it automatically enlarged man's knowledge of the world.", the Americans were different than the Europeans. In Europe, a set of common "truths" and expectations led to the world being recorded in an organized and official fashion, where only the most educated could possibly have a say in history. This is very different than the New World, where the aquisition of knowledge was open for anyone. Why would those free people of the New World care about cataloging when there was so much to be done every day? Being a scientist or a recorder was not approapriate, attractive, or easily attainable as a job in the New World, so, in contrast to Europe, they focused on gaining common knowledge on a day to day basis, which was called natural history.
2. For physical science to run well, it was usually placed within an organized system. Europeans appealed to this kind of science because their whole life was based upon rituals, history, and do's and don't's of society. But America was not suited to put the time into something like that. There were far better things to do than repeating the verification of things that were alrady self-evident. With so many new challenges facing them, Americans chose to focus on what was happening in the present, and the more people-related things that meant the most to them. America was not going to hide behind another ritual.
3. The quote on p.168 explains that a problem within human concept is what is seperating multiplicity and unity. It is impossible to bridge the entire gap. If human concept was based soley upon what we saw as truth and being self-evident, it would be easy to unify. But it is not that way. More importantly our human concept is what we desire to see. That is why the bridge is flimsy; each person in the world has a different conception of what the world should be, so it would be impossible to unify under one idea. When Henry Adams asks, "What is that energy?", he is begging to find the definition of the "energy" which is the only unifying part of human conception.
1. Knowledge in America was aquired in a different was in the Old World because almost every sircumstance and issue in the Old World had alreay arisen and been dealt with in some way. The Americas hadn't been enhabited by the Europeans for nearly enough time to have encountered every problem or experience. The act of living in the New World was an intelectual journey in itself because of adaptation to the new environment and life style. In the New World, one didn't have to quest for knowledge as they were living where knowledge came walking up to your front door. Most people had a hard enough time trying to survive let alone better themselves in any area that wasn't essential to their survival.
2. The reason behind few contributions to physical science was because, in America, almost everyone had to work for their living. There hadn't even been a division of labor in most places seeing as how mostly everyone was a farmer of some sort and very few artisans existed. The people who lived in the colonies had neither the time nor the data base to expand upon what was already known.
3. The purpose of this quote was to be critical of the view of knowledge and reason. When an anomoly occurs, one might wonder what caused that, and then what caused the cause, and etc for an eternity. It is beyond human comprehension to accept that things might happen for no reason and with no cause. The human's concept of thought is that everything has a purpose, whether to spur on another action or to have some such reaction; human search for an answer to every little thing that occurs, never to think that there might not be one.
1. In America, knowledge and discoveries were stumbled upon as the need to expand and survive grew. American’s acquisition of knowledge focused on the practical uses of the land, rather than a systematic description of it. Much of the actual data collected from settling (not exploring) the New World came in scattered and unrelated bits, such as the Native American style of horseback riding and “the virtues of the American wild grape.” It was this scatter-brained system of collection which characterized American thought. In contrast, collection of knowledge in the Old World was extremely systematic. Scientists of Europe were controlled by libraries and previously ordained systems of thought. To make discoveries, one had to have, firstly, the background knowledge to do so, and secondly the leisure time (both of which the Americans lacked). The New World provided European scientists with an expansive new laboratory to test in. It was the European scientists that felt the need to categorize and organize the tremendous variety of plants and other novelties in America. In fact, Boorstin argues that “the very existence of so many systematizers in contemporary Europe seemed to make Americans feel that they themselves did not need to seek large generalizations.”
2. The lack of contributions to the physical sciences by colonial Americans was due to the simple need to survive. The settlers had absolutely no background knowledge of their new home, making it extremely difficult to live in any circumstance. The colonists’ preoccupation with survival meant they had very little time to devote to scientific discoveries or theories. When descriptions were made of America, they were for a “specific practical purpose” and not intended to contribute to the physical sciences of the time.
3. In such a dynamic and expansive world, can one really ever hope to create a cohesive bond between it all? If holding true to the Founding Father’s view of “self-evidence”, one can’t. All men (and now women) have individual thoughts and feelings which can be expressed, and it is this flaw of the human concept which divides all things. With so many opposing views and opinions, it would be impossible to “bridge the chasm between multiplicity and unity.” Unless, however, one took the aristocratic position of letting the few govern the thoughts and actions of the many. Henry Adams, however, makes the interesting observation that a possible commonality is energy. If we are all bound by this identical invisible force, then what is stopping us from becoming one?
1. The acquisition of knowledge in America was different than that of the old world because Europeans came to the land before any explorers, geographers, and other professionals of this sort had a chance to. As they learned about the areas around them, their knowledge was expanded about the area and people around them. Lewis and Clark set off, discovering more about America as did explorers after them, expanding knowledge. They learned from their explorations and actions. Learning in America came from necessity because they could more easily adapt to their new lifestyle and solve problems from learning from their experiences. Europeans learned more from books than Americans did.
2. So few contributions were made in physical sciences because, as Boorstin said, “knowledge came in small parcels” (pg 162). “Thoughts were gathered but not systemized.” Botnists gathered their discoveries and published their findings in books such as “Plantae Coldenhamiae” (which was never fully published.) This attained some recognition however. Discovering something new in America “took effort to avoid novelty.” People found knowledge from contemplation and study. They also contributed by recording their daily lives. Knowledge was still developing as America was still developing.
3. The energy of concept or knowledge judging by the quote by Henry Adams is the hardest to attain. Unity is hard to achieve when people are not willing to work together, but knowledge is hard to receive if you are not completely focused, if you do not tap into that “energy” it is hard to achieve any knowledge at all. In order to learn, we must want to learn. Human concept is not all based on trial and error or past and present experiences. It is also based on how we think and perceive things, how we want to perceive things. This is the question Adams poses: What is that energy? The energy of knowledge and the energy in our very existence? Surely this energy exists, as we live with it and focus on it.
2. Boorstin characterizes America as a country that was in the moment and yearning to discover through experience; the Americans were not one to elaborately organize their findings into great works of literature in order to impress some higher power. This is why colonial Americans did not make contributions to the physical sciences. Physical science required organized theory while the Americans recorded their discoveries in miscellaneous and random order; a physical scientist would be found more often in a laboratory whereas a natural historian, or American, dealt with subject matter of everyday life. Instead of making advancements in the physical sciences, colonial America was known for its contributions to natural history. However, acting superior, England regarded this as immaturity on America's part, since anyone could produce an unorganized notebook of non-theoretical findings, but not everyone could come out with ground breaking discoveries of physics.
1. In America at this time, when only a fraction of the country had been explored, new discoveries were made left and right by all manner of people who were simply being observant. In Europe and Asia, many of the kinds of discoveries made in the New World at the time had long ago been made. People of the Old World had to therefore dig much deeper to unearth new facts about their world, and only those having “the concentration of a philosopher, the researches of a scholar, or the industry of an encyclopedist” were wont to make them. This fact also created the system where average Americans made the observations and well-learned European systemized all this new information.
2. So few contributions were made in the physical sciences by Americans at this time because there was a much greater emphasis on natural history. Natural history was a much simpler area to become knowledgeable in than the physical sciences: all one needed was to have an eye for observation and there was no formal training needed, whereas years of university study were required to make advancements in chemistry or physics. There were also many opportunities to study natural history in a place not fully explored such as America.
3. Henry Adam’s use of the term “human concept” is something I take as meaning the human individual. Therefore I interpret his quote to mean that the one thing standing between multiplicity and unity is the individual nature of each person, that each person behaves and thinks in his own way. The only way to “bridge the chasm” is to find some energy that every individual has in common, and that energy is something philosophy, religion, and science have tried to discover for hundreds of years. This quote supports Boorstin’s view that a “total philosophic system” can not effectively rule over a society because this philosophy will always be chosen by a small group of people and not involve the entire group.
1. In the New World, the colonists did not know that they were learning every minute of every day. While in the Old World, one had to seek knowledge in order to learn. America provided an empty starting ground for the colonists. It was unstudied and untainted. At this time, there was no single stereotype for America. America was open for interpretation. The colonists learned through living. "The 'discovery' of America... was a by-product of the occupation of the continent." (pg. 160)
2. Few contributions to physical sciences by the colonial Americans happened because all advances were made in natural history. Colonial Americans kept records of daily life rather than scientific data. This happened because of what was mentioned in question one (above). Most colonists were not trying to discover things like new flora and fauna. Americans did not even realize that they were "discovering" North America, they were just living their lives the best they could. Therefore, most contributions to world knowledge were made in natural history, through their daily journals and pieces of writing.
1. In the new world, the Americans had to discover everything for themselves. They were away from libraries and centers of learning. This is different then in the old world where documents could be found dating back to hundreds of years before. The old world stayed connected by trade where America was never connected from coast to coast by trade. It meant that the Americans were left to test and learn things for themselves.
2. Americans really only explored the Atlantic coast, and knew nothing of what lay further west until the Lewis and Clark expedition. The Europeans would write books on American Geography, but the locations of mountain ranges would be so inaccurate they proved to be of little use in the future. Americans did not write the geography books because they were too interested in actually exploring the new land.
3. The quote on page 168 means that although theologians might acquire the ‘best’ society, it doesn’t mean that society will actually accept it. In other words, they might plan for things to go one way, but it wont be accepted or work in the society.
1. Knowledge aquitision in the New World wasn't looked at in as high a regard as it was in the Old World. People were discovering new things for their colonies in America, but some of these had already been discovered in England. Further, people had to strive to survive in America so they didn't spend vast amounts of time searching at their own expanse. "All knowledge in America seemed to come in small, miscellaneous parcels. The almost overwhelming temptation was simply to gather up these as one came upon them, not worrying too much wheteher they were marketable in the familiar European categories." (pg 162)
2. Colonial Americans didn't spend much of their precious time to perfectly contribute and match and classify data for the physical sciences, or from the above quote, worry if they fit current categories.
~Chris Sogge~ :)
1. Since knowledge in America was acquired through experience, new world knowledge was far different than that of old world Europe or Asia. In the colonies, if something new had been learned it was out of necessity's and not for the sake of learning, where in Europe and Asia scientists were working on discovering new medicines and how to better a ship. According to Boorstin, these actions were referred to as "natural history" and "physical science". Natural history is the process of learning by a day-to-day routine, where if a problem came up you dealt with it or let it go.
2. Since America was still a developing nation, there was no system of organization. In order to focus more on the physical sciences the nation needs to be fully developed so it can spend the time focusing on the sciences. America was not fully developed and thus did not have the time to focus on long-term but instead only focus on day-to-day occurrences.
3. "but the flimsiest bridge of all is the human concept..." In my opinion, this is saying that with all the knowledge in the world, the colonists still would not be able to support themselves . If they tried their bridge could collapse, and until they were independent of England they would not be able to walk across.
1. In the New World, knowledge wasn't just gained through schools and orderly learning. it was more of a collection in miscellaneous experiences that people would draw knowledge from. They would learn from what they saw, and since so many things in the New World were novelties, one often learned something new just stepping out your front door. You would learn about something yourself first, before the scientific investigators came in and picked it apart. Learning wasn't systematic, it just came up whenever the oppertunity arose.
2. Very few advances in the physical sciences were made by Americans because they didn't want to pick it apart and find out details about the land and what they saw. They didn't find it necessary to identify what was in the soil, it was more important for them to know if you could grow something useful in it. It mostly came down to practicality. Plus, Americans were far from the large libraries of the Old World.
1.) The acquisition of knowledge in America was different than that of Europe or Asia because in America knowledge was gained through life experiences rather than for academic achievement. In america, learning was driven by new obstacles to overcome in everyday life, and had practical appliances. Europe and Asia, on the other hand, seemed to attain knowledge in a much more disconnected manner. Rather than experiencing things, it was much more systematic, involving background checks and research etc before learning.
2.) Knowledge of physical science was minimal in America because they had more pertinent things to be concerned with. Government development, religious conflicts, and agricultural improvements all took priority over advancement or physical science knowledge.
2) Americans developed so little in physical sciences in the colonial period simply because they were still trying to familiarize themselves with it. Faced with such a vast area of land, colonists were more prone to develop survival techniques than atlases. So much was unknown that the beginning of the project of recording it was not to begin for many years. On top of the colonial situation, geography at the time was rather primitive, and the science as a whole was still developing.
3) Boorstin here describes that trying to develop a system for philosophy is virtually impossible because bringing all knowledge in the world together is a concept that is strenuous even to think about. Basically Boorstin says there is no way to form a system of knowledge when there is such a variety. Miscellaneous sums it up when he describes the quest for knowledge of America, because there really is no where to start; one must dive in at a random point and collect information.
2. One main reason that Early America did not participate in the innovations of physical science was because many people at the time were very religious and did not want to contradict what they were taught. Many people beleived what their sacredtexts told them and left it at that. For them, there was no need to delve any further into something that had already been explained to them by their god. They figured that they already had all of the knowledge possible.
1. In europe, knowledge was aquired and applied and based upon previous records of history, whereas everything was new for a while in the colonies.
2. As america was just developing at the time, the main focus was on non-pysical sciences, but more on pracitcal ones for the colonies.
3. Boorstin is essentially going with a very platonic ideal that the only thing you cna truly know is that you know nothing. he states that while you can attempt to understand all, no one can understand everything.
1. The difference in knowledge in the “old world” (Europe/Asia) and the “new world” (America) was simply the practicality of the sciences. Compare the cotton gin which saved the Americans south economy to the telescope, obviously the cotton gin had much more of an impact (economically and socially) while the telescope really only affected the ideas of the rich in Europe, not their lives. That’s another difference in Europe, only the very rich had enough resources to execute scientific experiences and be able to read the books while in America there was higher literacy and more common place science.
2. The Physical sciences were all discovered by rich Europeans with nothing better to do, the Colonists were originally to busy either fighting Native Americans or farming or simply surviving. The Americans were trying to get the things the Europeans already had and so did not immediately work on Physical Science.
3. Boorstin’s quote is basically an attack on the idea of self-evidence. The world is so diverse and huge that statistically its impossible to be educated enough to be sure about anything. He goes on to answer what is energy? And this is his proof, we don’t know anything about energy except that it exists. I don’t know enough to prove that wind exists, I can’t feel it, can’t smell it, see it, taste it, or hear it. But I can see the leaves blowing and hear the sound of the air pushed through objects, or feel the air pushed on me. Thus I know wind exists just like I know energy does.
1. The acquisition of knowledge in America was based off of their ideas of experience and natural history, rather than the systematic way the Europeans discovered and recorded things. Expeditions, like that of Lewis and Clark, were encouraged to help “push back the frontiers of knowledge,” while the Europeans came over to record all of the discoveries. The first record of America’s geography was created by a German scholar because the Americans “were too busy exploring their land to write elaborate books about it.” In short, the Americans collected tidbits while the Europeans used their organized systems to make sure everything about this new land was recorded for other interested people back in Europe.
2. As America started to expand in both population and territory the acquisition of history became more important in both the natural and physical field. However, America’s purpose and ways of thinking made it much easier to accumulate natural rather than physical history. Natural history, or the basic collection of experiences and acknowledgments from everyday life, was something that anyone and everyone could plunge into. All the records collected in natural history could be read by, “any person with eyes, ears, and some curiosity,” and while there were some Latin names and phrases that might confuse the average reader, the pictures/drawings of the accounts made up for it. Possibly physical science’s most discouraging factor was then the fact that one had to be more schooled to take part or learn from it. Natural history dealt with the earth, water, and air where as physical history dealt with theories like entropy (or randomness), gravity, and chemical elements like oxygen and nitrogen. Because America was based off the ideas of being free from intuitions of thought and preexisting theory the system of the physical world to the back burner in colonial America.
3. Boorstin’s quote on page 168 that starts off, “When life thus draws its meaning from a system of philosophy,” (I’m assuming this is the one you mean) goes to point of starting simple. He says to understand a system you have to start at the beginning which consists of what you already know and the definitions you gain from experience and planning. Knowledge has to be built up over time so that ideas of philosophy can be created. However, Boorstin is also suggesting that not all thought and knowledge has to be unified into a singular philosophy to make a society more prosperous. Knowledge to the American colonist was miscellaneous, and while discoveries of the land flowed in slowly and in random chunks American society became more open and flexible to knowledge.
Chapter 26 & 27
1. Acquisition of knowledge in America differed from those in England. American knowledge was often found in small random pieces through experience and exploration. Many things were gained in natural sciences. In contrast, in the Old World much of the knowledge gained was made by hypotheses and speculation. Information was systemized and used for bigger pictures while in the New World knowledge was used for practical life.
2. The reason for the lack of contribution in physical sciences made by the Americans was due to the practicality of it and the America’s “immaturity”. Time in the New World was limited and not leisurely. They did not have time to think for long times. They had to live and learn through experience and write down many miscellaneous pieces in a notebook. The Americans focused on popular vocabulary and did not branch out to the more in depth and time-demanding sciences. This is why little contribution was made to the physical sciences.
3. I believe the quote on page 168 tells of what the real problems are with philosophy, science, and thought. In subjects that are sometimes vast, relative, and debatable it is hard to connect many people to one idea. It is hard to bridge human concepts to different people with different backgrounds, lives, feelings, etc. For this reason connecting the whole world is difficult, although if we are truly all bound by an invisible “energy” then maybe we should all be one.
Taylor Oster 2009
1. American aquisition of knowledge was fresh from experience. Knowledge was found through daily trials and problems that were solved without a prior reference, what Boorstin calls "Natural Knowledge". American knowledge was acquired from experience, and as Boorstin says, "...never before in a civilized country had physical and intellectual expansion been so clearly synonoymous." As America and its colonizers expanded their territory, they faced and overcame more hardships, all added on to their library of new knowledge about land and about people that was impossible to gain in stuffed, industrialed Europe, where every day was routine and nothing was new. Whereas in Europe, knowledge was built on prior knowledge (most likely established by a different individual), American knowledge was acquired by facing problems new and undealt with before.
2. Physical science was defined by research and analysis, close to what we know as science today. Those who pursued them would no doubt require a large amount of free time on their hands, wholly impossible in the early stages of the colonization of America, where settlers were thoroughly occupied with the pursuit of their livelihoods and homes, fighting away previous unknown enemies and threats, adapting to the environment, and a whole list of problems related to the establishing of a new civilization in a new land. Americans were too busy uncovering new knowledge to explore it, and too busy trying to carve out their country to turn back and spend time that could be used to sow crops to ask questions and test theories. Only thoroughly industrialized nations like England could there be people with time to spare, while Americans were fighting to live on a new frontier.
3. I'm not sure what this quote means, but I'll attempt to interpret. It sounds like Henry Adams (if this is indeed the right quote, whereas it would be on pp. 167) is considering that with so many individual people, and each person their own little world, it is near impossible to consider a population one single entity. However, in the second half of the quote, Adams seems to find an answer to that dilemna: if there was a single drive propelling a great amount of individuals to one end, unity could be the right word for the effort; that people could be unified for one cause, with the same values and the same desires.
1. Knowledge, and its acquisition, both varied between the New and Old Worlds. In the New World, the acquisition of knowledge was based on the search for new truths and learning from their surroundings which had not yet been explored, thus it was called natural history. This so called natural history varied greatly from the physical science in the Old World, which, due to the number of things which had already been discovered and delved into, required only the very experienced and intelligently trained to be able to learn and delve into new topics of exploration. Thus, put simply; everyone in the New World was involved in the acquisition of knowledge, where only the intellectual elite were in the Old World.
2. Due to the harsh nature of colonial life in the New World, at least by the viewpoint of most of the masses, there was very little advancement in physical sciences, as the greatest number of the intelligentsia were too occupied advancing their knowledge about the new world, not that already present in the old world. Similarly, the working class with intelligence that were not of the upper echelons of society were too busy making the meager living they could and reveling in their new surroundings to delve into the more complicated and time/resource consuming research of physical science.
3. Henry Adam’s appears to be questioning what the “energy” which binds together humans of all different calibers and situations, which most obviously, in my opinion (and as you asked me to comment, I am allowed to give it,) is most obviously The Force.
1. In what way(s) are the acquisition of knowledge in America (New World) different compared to Europe or Asia (Old World)?
Where knowledge in the Old World was acquired through the use of set scientific principles and processes and theoretical premises whereas knowledge in the New World was acquired through experience.
2. Why were so few, or no, contributions made in the physical sciences by colonial Americans?
The reason nearly no contributions were made by the Americans in the physical sciences is two fold: First, very few universities existed in the colonies and those that were there did not have the necessary equipment to make such advances. Second, most of the people in the colonies were simply trying to survive, one cannot make scientific advances whilst one is starving or under attack.
3. Please read Boorstin's the quote on p. 168... comment?
This quote says to me that without an established/stratified philosophy by which, generally, everyone lives their lives by there is far more ideological diversity and more room for scientific growth.
1. In America, knowledge was not collected for the sake of simply understanding the area, instead, the collection of knowledge was a byproduct of expeditions meant for other more practical purposes. There were not as many naturalists or historians, and the people who collected the knowledge were regular colonists. The knowledge that was collected were not organized into systematized accounts, but rather existed as bits and pieces, until European scholars later collected American anecdotes into comprehensive works.
2. The knowledge and information that was available to be gained in America fell more into natural sciences rather than the physical sciences. Physical science has a more linear progression of ideas to be understood, and would require more effort and study. Americans, on the other hand, were better suited to gaining small pieces of information concerning the natural world, which was very different from the old world. Also, this natural history knowledge would benefit the Americans more by being more relevant and applicable to their colonization, whereas the more abstract physical sciences were not as direct.
3. This quote discusses the difficulty of “bridging the chasm between multiplicity and unity,” which can be understood as finding an overall schema of philosophy and knowledge that can fit the general public. Previously, the European upper aristocracy had found philosophical systems that fit them, but did not apply to the rest of the population. The energy needed, that Adams talks about, is one that would connect these concepts of an overall knowledge pattern and the general populace. However, Boorstin also shows that America was unique in that it did not need a general philosophy in order to grow. Instead, anecdotal knowledge of the natural world was everywhere, and anyone could begin to learn and become a self-made success, and universities were not needed to promote abstract or complex systems of thought.
1. In the new world acquisition of knowledge came with learning new things and new inventions. In the old world there were already solutions to pretty much every poblem that could arise but that was not the case in the new world.
2. There was little focus on physical sciences because the people were much more interested with the land that they were now living in. They were eager to learn about the new land and the geography of the land therefore their focuses wer more in the are of natural sciences.
3. This quote shows that the people were anxious to learn about what was happening around them...ex: "what is energy?" 168
1. In what way(s) are the acquisition of knowledge in America (New World) different compared to Europe of Asia (Old World)?
In the Old World, the acquisition of knowledge was generally limited to a select few who possessed the education and research facilities to understand and test the theories of famous physical scientists, like Isaac Newton. This contrasts sharply with the New World, where discoveries were made constantly, due to the constant exploration of the new continent. This is called “natural history” because it is simply the process of studying the world around the colonists in the New World.
2. Why were so few, or no, contributions made in the physical sciences by colonial Americans?
The Americans could not study physical sciences the way they were studied in Europe for several reasons. Primarily, the colonists were too busy struggling for survival and organization of a colony to bother with building and organizing the facilities and institutions required to study complex physical sciences. There was no elite aristocracy like there was in Europe—since almost everyone was equal in the colonies, everyone had to work and there was no extra time for even educated individuals to study.
3. Please read Boorstin’s the quote on p.168…comment?
Boorstin uses a quote from Henry Adams to discuss unity in society. Adams makes a point concerning “…an energy not individual…” that serves as a unifying force. This energy can take many forms—to some, it is God or gods, to others it is the Force, and still more say it is the Q Continuum.
1. In what way(s) are the acquistion of knowledge in America (New world ) different compared to Europe or Asia (old waorld)?
In America knowledge was mostly gain through experiences and trial and error. At the time American did not have alot of access to schools and learning centers like Europe did (kind of). The learn knowledge when things would come up and had to be fixed.
2. Why were so few, or no, contributions made in physical sciences by colonial Americans?
The reason why Americans did not contribute to this is because they were more worried about their goverment, crops, livestock, and religion. The colonist were to busy trying to survive in their new enviorment to do this.
3. Please read Boorstin's the quote on p. 169...comment?
1. In what way(s) are the acquisition of knowledge in America (New World) different compared to Europe or Asia (Old World)?
The acquisition of knowledge in America was found by expedition for the purpose of helping better their society. It also involved a search of truth and reality after most of them came from England wanting to get away.
2. Why were so few, or no, contributions made in the physical sciences by colonial Americans?
Because of the new land, Survival was more important than just wanting to learn more about the earth. The intellectual class was more focused on making a living.
2. Why were so few, or no, contributions made in the physical sciences by colonial Americans?
The reason that America was not making any advances in science was that it was only just developing. The people in America were occupied with creating their government and continuing to practice their religion. They did not have time to think about making scientific advances.
Mira Schlosberg
Post a Comment