LA Rivoluzione Dimenticata (Italian Edition) [Lucio Russo] on * FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Get Instant Access to La Rivoluzione Dimenticata. Il Pensiero Pensiero Scientifico Greco E La Scienza Moderna By Lucio Russo pdf. La Rivoluzione. Lucio Russo (born 22 November ) is an Italian physicist, mathematician and historian of Born in BC and Why It Had to Be Reborn (Italian: La rivoluzione dimenticata), Russo promotes the belief that Hellenistic science in the period.

Author: Majora Zulkijora
Country: Norway
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: History
Published (Last): 1 April 2010
Pages: 467
PDF File Size: 14.50 Mb
ePub File Size: 1.40 Mb
ISBN: 758-7-80986-897-3
Downloads: 88660
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Kazirisar

This page was last edited on 5 Septemberat Yet the play of russl history of Western science was not entirely episodic. A truly forgotten revolution!

Lucio Russo – Wikipedia

Somehow, a process of forgetting must have occurred in between. If the book helps to renew interest in such grand narratives, it will have made a very interesting contribution. The same principle holds for intellectual achievements, yet Russo to exaggerate a little reads Archimedes almost as if he was the contemporary of Popper. We may often be wary today, as professional historians, of suggesting all-encompassing models of historical progress and decline.

In L’ America dimenticataRusso suggests that the Americas were known to some European civilizations in ancient times, probably discovered by the Phoenicians or the Carthaginiansbut that the knowledge ruaso lost under Roman expansion in the 2nd century BCE.

La Rivoluzione Dimenticata by Lucio Russo

Essentially, this is a Popperian version of the hypothetico-deductive model, consisting of construct- ing theoretical domains, producing conclusions according to mathematical reasoning, and interpreting and testing those conclusions by rrusso to empirical realizations. Nor later than the third century B. Hypothetico-deductive science may have its roots in Greece—but the roots are tan- gled, as it were, leading to surprising places such as pure mathematics, speculative medicine, and rhetoric.


We should try to dinenticata how this has happened and, thanks to Russo, the problem may now be addressed. Thanks to Russo, we may begin to think through such issues: Certainly not at the so-called scientific revolution—which merely brought back to life the Hellenistic methods it knew from its literary sources.

La Rivoluzione Dimenticata

He ar- gues that all the components of this method were put in place in the Dimnticata world: Click here to sign up. Mathematical reconstructions out, textual studies in: Zur Geschichte epistemischer Dinge.

Not in the Classical period. Hellenistic ruzso was focused on the city of Alexandria. In the history of science, he has reconstructed some contributions of the Hellenistic astronomer Hipparchusthrough the analysis of his surviving works, and the proof of heliocentrism attributed by Plutarch to Seleucus of Seleucia and studied the history of theories of tides [3]from the Hellenistic to modern age.

Second, I think Russo puts too much stress on a single method. Indeed, Russo cannot be much wrong in ascribing a major role, in this play, to the Greeks. In The Forgotten Revolution: Lucio Russo born 22 November is an Italian physicist lucik, mathematician and historian of science.


Preface by Marcello Cini.

Lucio Russo in Third and finally, whatever we may think of the narrative Russo offers for the entire his- tory of Western science, I feel we ought to applaud him for offering it.

First, I think Russo puts too much stress on a single fimenticata. Perhaps, then, the scientific revolution consisted just in this: In- deed, it is not totally far-fetched to detect a hypothetico-deductive science in some works by Archimedes though even there I tend to see a more purely abstract mathematical thinkingBut taken in their historical context, such works belonged to a wider domain of persuasive writings.

Views Read Edit View history. He also concludes that the 17th-century scientific revolution in Europe was due in large part to the recovery of Hellenistic rudso.

Russo bases his argument on an interpretation of the scientific method. Third and finally, I think Russo puts too much stress on a single historical model.

Il pensiero scientifico greco e la scienza moderna. Second, Russo is right, I think, to highlight a problem that was largely overlooked by the scholarship—that is, how exactly did Greek science get forgotten?