A controversial British historian, E.H. Carr, reckoned that his subject was shaped by the very process of studying it. "The belief in a hard core of historical facts existing objectively and independently of the interpretation of the historian is a preposterous fallacy," he wrote, "but one which it is very hard to eradicate." Patricia Fara provides a reminder that science is also a human activity.

The birth of science is often dated to 1660, when the Royal Society was founded in London by the followers of Francis Bacon, who argued that knowledge could come only by testing ideas through experiment. Ms Fara, however, points out that they did not start with a blank slate. She places the roots of science back in ancient Babylon, where court advisers developed mathematical and astronomical expertise. Admittedly, these observers were watching the skies in the hope of gleaning future portents. Their observations, however, could be interpreted as scientific because they were trying to correlate what they saw. The fact that they were ultimately unsuccessful, because the movements of heavenly bodies do not determine political events on Earth, does not invalidate the process by which this conclusion was eventually drawn.

Ms Fara also argues, persuasively, that science is rarely an esoteric effort to attain pure knowledge, as envisaged by Bacon. Rather it stems from attempts to gain power through activities such as politics, magic, religion, trade and war. The Babylonian astronomers were seeking political advantage. The main motive of many Islamic scholars and, indeed, Newton himself, was the better understanding of God. The discovery of America by Christopher Columbus in 1492 unleashed an era of exploration, in which scientific instruments became crucial for navigators. Warfare has long driven science, perhaps most visibly in the development of nuclear weapons.

... contd.