6 ms·

This from the book's description [1] implies that she did much more that that. > Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought he

This from the book's description [1] implies that she did much more that that. > Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything from decimalizing the currency to producing Hebrew grammars. She practiced medicine alongside distinguished male physicians, treating some of the most elite patients in London. Her medical recipes, political commentaries, and testimony concerning the philosophers’ stone gained international circulation. She was an important influence on Boyle and a formidable thinker in her own right. [1] https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo59259887.html https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/L/bo592598...

kofddfjdfdfdff 6y ago
So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history. Not saying she wasn't a formidable thinker, but many people were and are. Only a few become famous because their inventions have long lasting effects.
- zozbot234 6y ago
  > So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history. The weird thing is that she seems to have been popular, yet she isn't mentioned (so far as I can tell) in the main sources of pre-20th c. biography (e.g. the DNB). Uncovering such minor but influential figures that hadn't yet been comprehensively described has always been a main interest of historians and antiquarians, so I think this author's work can be described as a very real accomplishment.
  - kofddfjdfdfdff 6y ago
    Even describing the lives of normal people would be interesting. The problem is that "feminist scholarship" carries a very real risk of history revisionism.
dash2 6y ago
I think this is a much better argument than all the overheated comments about how I'm a misogynist pig. But still. Here's a comparison. This person: * Discussed refraction with the brilliant philosopher Thomas Hobbes * Computed the first table of antilogarithms * Wrote manuscripts on the circulation of the blood - and may have anticipated Harvey * Also wrote on psychology, and the size of the universe * Conducted some of the first experimental research on medicine This is Walter Warner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Warner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Warner). Probably way more distinguished than you or I will ever be, but not quite an unknown genius - just the first name I saw on the Wikipedia list of 17th century scientists. So, in terms of actual achievements, is this less than Lady Ranelagh? To be clear, I have zero problem with people writing books on unknown female thinkers. I'm sure I'd find this an interesting book! What I think is bad is the overclaiming that sometimes goes along with it - giving inflated importance to historical figures based on what they might have done, if only society had been fairer. I think this comes from two reasons: a sense of historical injustice, and a desire to have historical female role models for scientists today. (OK, and maybe a third, the desire to sell one's book.) But however laudable those reasons are, we should not distort history in their service.
- watwut 6y ago
  Literally no one said you are misogynist pig. One called it "taking offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it". I said "bias" in response to someone who called your comment win. You grossly exaggerate reactions and what people said. And you are in fact taking offense on her having freaking article about her. That is it, the article exists is the issue here.
  - eternalban 6y ago
    Not just an article, an assertion of an "incomparable intellectual". That means an intellectual "without equal". It is fair to question such hyperbole, given that the editors of Nature are surely well acquainted with the English language. But speaking of cracks in history, note how all these notables are aristocrats. Let's ponder all the "incomparable intellectuals" who were not to manor born, male or female.
ceilingcorner 6y ago
> Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything By this logic, Ja Rule is the smartest man alive. https://youtu.be/XYfKzzyWQjM https://youtu.be/XYfKzzyWQjM
SuoDuanDao 6y ago
Sounds like she was a woman of letters. That used to be more of a thing, someone who corresponded a lot and had an influence on a lot of notable people, one person at a time. It seems that while she would have had a tremendous impact on the intellectual life of her time, it would have been all through personal relationships that wouldn't have left much of a trace when both parties died. And we have no way of knowing that she'd have wanted it any other way - she clearly had the respect of the people who mattered to her.

kofddfjdfdfdff 6y ago

So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history. Not saying she wasn't a formidable thinker, but many people were and are. Only a few become famous because their inventions have long lasting effects.

zozbot234 6y ago
> So she was popular and so - that probably was true for many, many people throughout history. The weird thing is that she seems to have been popular, yet she isn't mentioned (so far as I can tell) in the main sources of pre-20th c. biography (e.g. the DNB). Uncovering such minor but influential figures that hadn't yet been comprehensively described has always been a main interest of historians and antiquarians, so I think this author's work can be described as a very real accomplishment.
- kofddfjdfdfdff 6y ago
  Even describing the lives of normal people would be interesting. The problem is that "feminist scholarship" carries a very real risk of history revisionism.

dash2 6y ago

I think this is a much better argument than all the overheated comments about how I'm a misogynist pig. But still. Here's a comparison. This person: * Discussed refraction with the brilliant philosopher Thomas Hobbes * Computed the first table of antilogarithms * Wrote manuscripts on the circulation of the blood - and may have anticipated Harvey * Also wrote on psychology, and the size of the universe * Conducted some of the first experimental research on medicine This is Walter Warner (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Warner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Warner). Probably way more distinguished than you or I will ever be, but not quite an unknown genius - just the first name I saw on the Wikipedia list of 17th century scientists. So, in terms of actual achievements, is this less than Lady Ranelagh? To be clear, I have zero problem with people writing books on unknown female thinkers. I'm sure I'd find this an interesting book! What I think is bad is the overclaiming that sometimes goes along with it - giving inflated importance to historical figures based on what they might have done, if only society had been fairer. I think this comes from two reasons: a sense of historical injustice, and a desire to have historical female role models for scientists today. (OK, and maybe a third, the desire to sell one's book.) But however laudable those reasons are, we should not distort history in their service.

watwut 6y ago
Literally no one said you are misogynist pig. One called it "taking offense at a book that celebrates the achievement of a woman, and to question the accuracy of it without having actually read it". I said "bias" in response to someone who called your comment win. You grossly exaggerate reactions and what people said. And you are in fact taking offense on her having freaking article about her. That is it, the article exists is the issue here.
- eternalban 6y ago
  Not just an article, an assertion of an "incomparable intellectual". That means an intellectual "without equal". It is fair to question such hyperbole, given that the editors of Nature are surely well acquainted with the English language. But speaking of cracks in history, note how all these notables are aristocrats. Let's ponder all the "incomparable intellectuals" who were not to manor born, male or female.

ceilingcorner 6y ago

> Philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, and religious authorities sought her opinion on everything By this logic, Ja Rule is the smartest man alive. https://youtu.be/XYfKzzyWQjM https://youtu.be/XYfKzzyWQjM

SuoDuanDao 6y ago

Sounds like she was a woman of letters. That used to be more of a thing, someone who corresponded a lot and had an influence on a lot of notable people, one person at a time. It seems that while she would have had a tremendous impact on the intellectual life of her time, it would have been all through personal relationships that wouldn't have left much of a trace when both parties died. And we have no way of knowing that she'd have wanted it any other way - she clearly had the respect of the people who mattered to her.