Great Review of Arianrhod’s work. I am in agreement with you that this biography was written for a popular audience, but it seems the author’s training in mathematics rather than history betrays them at points. I admittedly found myself rereading the sections on trigonometry several times. You provide a good overview of the progress of the work, and touch on the social and cultural aspects, which I also found important. It did seem to me that some of her inclusions of the social and cultural context may have appeared a bit forced, the section (albeit brief) on the encomienda system seemed a bit off topic. I suspect that the lack of archival materials relating to Harriot may have caused this.

The most interesting aspect of the book, and Harriot’s work by extension, was the his divorce between social and cultural context and his approach to science. Of course, as we have seen this semester, science cannot be separated from the context in which it arises (or is performed), but I found it remarkable that Harriot could find proofs for the law of reflection, for example, and then put it to the side. The distinction between the WHY and the HOW appear to me at least to be the most significant development in the philosophy of science for the purposes of this class. With Harriot, we see a figure divorced from the theological and speculative aspects of 16th and 17th century experimentation; Harriot is the first person we have read since Newton’s appearance in Shapin that I recognize as a scientist when applying my own 21st century criteria. Though I am still tentative on the idea of scientific revolution, Harriot’s departure from ancient and medieval scientific inquiry into purely analytical experimentation appear (to me at least), the first “revolution” in scientific thought that we have seen in this class.

Again, great review! Looking forward to the discussion.