As a non-academic, this book was at times a bit dense on the intersections of the history of natural philosphy, politics, and religion at the dawn of the United States' creation, but presented such an interesting picture of Joseph Priestley that I found myself being swept along with the historic events.Joseph Priestley is the real focus of the book-- not only the experiments with glass domes and mint where a real concept of the gasses making up "air" started to be divined, but also his mistaken obsession with how air combustion (phlogiston), his peculiar openess and willingness to share experiments and results-- even with French rival Lavoisier-- his Unitarian religious leanings that lead to various political issues, and lastly, his relationship with American intellectual luminaries Benjamin Rush, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin.The author paints a picture of a man who influences the political and scientific landscape so greatly (but is also a product of them) because he was so singular:"Here was a man at the very front lines of scientific achievement who was simultaneously a practicing minister and theologian-- and who was by the end of the 1770s, well on his way to becoming one of the most politically charged figures of his time. He was an empiricist driven by a deep and abiding belief in God, who was simultaneously a revolutionary of the first order. "Reading it in the midst of the 2016 presidential primaries, with deeply religious Republican candidates, global warming controversies sparking "scientific" debate, as well as political unrest in many parts of the world, one can't help but be fascinated by a man who could be so unabashedly consumed by science at the same time as holding illogical worldviews-- kind of like some of the political figures today.A worthwhile read for American history buffs as well as a look at the life of how an intellectually rigorous and theological scientist can hold contradictory ideas.

This was fascinating, and more technical/scientific/philosophical than books I've grown used to reading. Provides a decent mental workout of following the arguments he makes, but not difficult at all. It's interesting to hear Priestley's experiments explained, but I was expecting him to have a little more influence on American Founding Fathers. Definitely interesting he had influence at all, but the contact was essentially a bunch of letters between him and Franklin, and a few between him and Jefferson. After the blurb talked it up so much, Johnson almost skips past it. Interesting to hear of his ideas about Christianity, which truly seems to have helped berth the Jefferson Bible. He definitely got stuck on this stupid theory of "phlogiston" which I think is totally silly and possesses an absurd name. I don't often read biographies, but this made me glad I watched HBO's John Adams, and made me want to read a good biography about Ben Franklin (and not Priestley)! The book wandered a bit, but I'm glad he did his research and wrote about religion and progressive politics.

I could write my own review, but there is really no reason to when the New York Times has so effectively captured my thoughts about The Invention of Air . The review can be seen here.Johnson uses the life story of Joseph Priestly (18th century scientist and one of the discoverers of oxygen) as a means to illustrate connections between the disparate fields of energy, religion, the French and American revolutions, the scientific method and the ways in which paradigm shifts occur (among a host of other diverse and unrelated topics). Its a shame he didnt stick to the history of Priestly, since this is by far the most interesting part of the story. Instead, Johnson provides a snippet of Priestlys life, then uses it as a launching pad to expound upon an unrelated (and more often than not, uninteresting) topic. In addition to being forced, these digressions are, as the Times points out . annoying, and a kind of book-length game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon in which everything that ever was and ever will be is linked to everything else.That about nails it. Also, the book is rather boring.

This isn't a biography of Joseph Priestley, and it isn't a full historical summary of England and the beginning of America. It's not a scientific monograph, and in some ways, it's not history of science, either. But it is a good, sweeping tale that includes everything from dinosaurs and gigantic dragonflies to the French revolution and the Alien and Sedition Act in the United States. If you read this as something it's not, you won't like it. If you think that Johnson is only promoting the view of science with a long lens, you're wrong there too. He's given a good overview of how one man can be a good starting place for looking backwards and forwards at science, politics and religion. If you ever liked the tv show, "Connections with James Burke," then you'll like this book. If you're an expert in science, religion or politics, you probably will think he's skimmed over things too quickly. I liked this book, knowing almost nothing of Priestley, and only a little more about Franklin, Lavoisier, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. There's a nice section on the importance of coffee and coffee shops in Europe, and that makes me want to go back and read David Liss' The Coffee Trader. That's a great novel, by the way.

Steven Johnson, author of the excellent "The Ghost Map", here takes on the life of Joseph Priestley. The best parts of this book are where he confines himself to the task at hand, and gives us details of that life. Priestley was a fascinating character, a brilliant chemist and one of the most influential scientists of his age. He was also a practicing clergyman, whose nonconformist views ultimately provoked such a storm in England that he had to flee to America with his family. He was friends with Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams; as a consequence of these friendships, he was to have substantial influence on the development of political thought in the fledgling democracy. Priestley wasn't brilliant all the time, of course - there was his notorious attachment to the phlogiston theory, as well as an unhealthy obsession with the Book of Revelation in the final years of his life. So the details of Priestley's life certainly provide more than adequate material for an interesting account.Indeed, the book is at its most interesting when Johnson confines himself to filling in the biographical record. In particular, his account of the early work (discovery of what would later be termed Coulombs Law, publication of the History of Electricity, invention of soda water) and the two experiments which established Priestley's reputation (the work showing that plants synthesize oxygen, his later discovery of oxygen) is excellent. Unfortunately, Johnson then seems to lose his moorings a bit. Understandably, he wants to put Priestleys scientific contributions in historical perspective. But this leads him to include what can only be called bloviation ponderous, pseudo-profound musings about paradigm shifts, regrettable metaphors about the nature of scientific progress down the ages, and sentences like these: In the next decade, the three paths would combine to form a mighty highway, one that would ultimately drive Priestley all the way to the New World.Seeing human history as a series of intensifying energy flows is one way around the classic opposition between the Great Men and Collectivist visions of history.What is the internal chemistry of a mob? Tellingly, mob behavior inevitably gravitates toward displays of intense energy transfer: the collective strength of a hundred enraged men pulling a building apart and unleashing the destructive, oxidizing force of combustion. Where are the editors when you need them? Seriously, dude, ease off on the goddamned chemistry metaphors, wouldja? They make you seem like a moron, which youre not.For a prolonged stretch in its middle third, the book ceases to be mainly about Priestley, degenerating instead into a kind of look at me, Im Steven Johnson, see how clever I am morass. This is unfortunate, because even the most pedestrian of Priestleys biographical details would be more interesting than Johnsons views on the nature of scientific progress, which seemed to me to be short on content, long on pomposity. (This actually surprised me, because Ive heard him interviewed on the radio and he seemed quite sensible and unpretentious).Fortunately, things get back on track (more or less) for the remaining third of the book, describing the rising tide of violence that forced the Priestleys to flee to America and the scientists final years in Pennsylvania.Despite the misgivings expressed above, I really enjoyed this book, and have no hesitation in recommending it. But I do hope that Steven Johnson gets himself a better editor on his next project. (I've put this on my "terrific" shelf for now, despite reservations about Johnson's style, because Priestley's life was genuinely fascinating)