Where is the home of science as we know it?

[BaalChatzaf]

It is not Athens. Science as we have come to know it had its start in Samos in the Northern Agean Sea.

From the wiki article:

In ancient times Samos was a particularly rich and powerful city-state. It is home to Pythagoreion and the Heraion of Samos, a UNESCO World Heritage Site that includes the Eupalinian aqueduct, a marvel of ancient engineering. Samos is the birthplace of the Greek philosopherand mathematician Pythagoras, after whom the Pythagorean theorem is named, the philosopher Epicurus, and the astronomer Aristarchus of Samos, the first known individual to propose that the Earth revolves around the sun.....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the intellectual horse power of Ancient Greece was generated on the Turkish side of the Aegean Sea and in Alexandria, not on the mainland.

Athens is not the historical home of natural science. Nor is it the place where science in the Ancient World achieved its high point. That place is Alexandria where the likes of Conon, Eratosthenes and Archimedes flourished. Under the Ptolemies, Alexandria was the center of research and learning. The famous Library was the world's premier Think Tank at the time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

Thread: Where is the home of science as we know it?

Mistake: Instant Wikipedia-Based Expertise

> Science as we have come to know it had its start in Samos in the Northern Agean Sea.

No. Ionia** would be more accurate (Thales and post-Thales) if you want to start with Greece rather than the river valley civilizations even earlier.

Baal, you're not the only one who does it (Marotta on a range of topics, ND on the history of the spread of religions, and many others do it here) but what often comes across as just ripping paragraphs out of context from Wikipedia as authoritative or complete -- whether to oversimplify history or Aristotle or Galileo or epistemology any other subject -- is no substitute for having read books, taken courses on the history of science or on other complex subjects on which you want to sound off.

**Yes, you did mention the coast of Turkey further down. Also: You mention Alexandria as -the- high point. That also is too simplistic: Archimedes for example, the most brilliant mathematician-physicist-engineer of that age was from Syracuse, contrary to your statement. And Hellenistic science, engineering, technology didn't just reach a zenith in one city. (And yes, I knew this stuff from decades of reading--I didn't have to cut and paste wikipedia. At least I get the strong feeling that's what you and sometimes others do a lot of the time.)

[syrakusos]

Philip, my good fellow, I will stand toe-to-toe and trade blow for blow with you when it comes to the ancient Greek world. Just for instance, my essay on the proper pronunciation of ancient Greek, which I wrote for The Celator, was included in Volume 1 of Wayne Sayles's catalogue and history of ancient numismatics. But, being an Ivy Leaguer, you would not be as impressed with that as you ought to be with the fact that my paper on the origins of coinage which I wrote for The Classical Numismatic Quarterly was cited by Nobel laureate Robert Mundell in his monograph on the origins of coinage.

When I cite the Wikipedia, or the Britannica (my correction of which was nominated for a literary award by a Smithsonian curator), I do so for the convenience of the reader, to show that I am not just inventing these claims myself. I do not cite authority qua authority because the appeal to authority is known fallacy in forensics. (You need no citation, I am sure.)

That said, I agree with you that "science as we know it" may have had a different "origin" ... if it had any point of origin at all.

Robert, too, is right, when he notes that Athens was not the home. In fact, Athens was hostile to philosophy until after the death f Socrates. As I write on my blog here, what we call the "Socratic method" was really "the Milesian way" and was brought to Athens by Aspasia of Miletos. Thales of Miletos was arguably the first philosopher, the first geometer, and also (unarguably) an astute businessman.

That was the nature of the Tyrannic Revolution of the 7th century BCE. We think of "tyranny" as evil dictators, but those are two totally different things. The tyrant was a self-made man on the rise who ran the affairs of the town. Coinage - not cows - was his wealth; and mercenaries - not obligated relatives - were his power; and philosophy - not religion - was his worldview; and writing - not speech - was his mode of communication.

But to answer the question, modern science as we know it began with Galileo. Ain't no doubt...

As you say, Philip, it was not Samos, but Ionia, that was the leading front of intellectual change in the archaic/ancient margin. Robert cites Samians across centuries. By 400-300 BCE (and even earlier) Athens was a magnate for philosophers from the west such as Empedocles of Agragas and of the east such as the Zenos of Phoenicia. And although Aristarchos came from Samos, his important work was carried out on Rhodes, which in his time was what Athens had been. (After Ptolemy the 4th, 5th or 6th I forget ran out of money for the Museum (LIbrary), he cashiered a lot of intellectuals who actually carried learning to new places for the betterment of all. Rhodes had long been a commercial center. Now, it was an intellectual focus. Later, Julius Caesar went there to study Law. ... but is was not "Science as We Know It."

[9thdoctor]

Baal, you're not the only one who does it (Marotta on a range of topics, ND on the history of the spread of religions, and many others do it here) but what often comes across as just ripping paragraphs out of context from Wikipedia as authoritative or complete --

I assume you're referring to the Spread of Christianity thread here. Before making this charge did you bother to check to what extent I cited Wikipedia? Answer: once, a link to the article on Manichaeism, of which you showed yourself to be utterly ignorant in the very next post. I cite Gibbon, I reference Paul's letters, I quote the Theodosian code...no, no, Phil says I just rip paragraphs out of context from Wikipedia. You have no idea what depth of knowledge I have about the spread of religions, especially Christianity. Not a clue. I have a good idea how much you've studied, however, and I've certainly forgotten more than you'll ever know.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=147419

Now, how about answering my critique finally? As Bertie Wooster once chided Gussie Fink-Nottle, I object to this craven scooting.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=149053

P.S. I have no objection to citing Wikipedia, it's quite convenient and there are usually links and citations available there to help verify material in the articles. The trouble is Phil just being an ass. As usual.

P.P.S. I don't care to get into an argument about whether "science as we have come to know it" starts in Samos with Pythagoras or with Thales a few decades earlier and not very far away. It's stupid. But, this did call to mind Bronowski, and I think his presentation bolsters Bob's assertion. Start about 2 minutes in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IENM8u47zsI

[Philip Coates]

subject: having your coates and eating it

> I've certainly forgotten more than you'll ever know.

Yes, not-a-doctor, I agree you certainly do seem to have forgotten a lot. ha. ha ha. (Or never fully understood it, to be more exact in the area of history.) I should have worded it differently that you **seem sometimes** to just be using wikipedia as a trot.

I found your raising up of Manichaeism to be too silly to answer. And, no, I don't always answer challenges or questions, especially from people who seem to do nothing but launch personal attacks on me.

You can't have youir coates and eat him too. You can have serious intellectual discussions with me or you can do almost nothing but launch contemptuous personal attacks or character assassination on thread after thread. But you are not mature enough to grasp why that would be my reaction to you, are you?

[Philip Coates]

> I have no objection to citing Wikipedia

No one does. Nor is that precisely what I objected to. As I suspect you well know.

[9thdoctor]

> I have no objection to citing Wikipedia

No one does. Nor is that precisely what I objected to. As I suspect you well know.

Having noted that I did not quote Wikipedia in the referenced thread, I felt I should note that I don’t object to using it. So I was dealing with an implication of what I wrote. As I suspect any other reader, at least one of average intelligence, would know.

I found your raising up of Manichaeism to be too silly to answer. And, no, I don't always answer challenges or questions, especially from people who seem to do nothing but launch personal attacks on me.

I was 100% polite and serious with you until this post:

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=148097

After that piece of jackassery on your part, forget it. You did post replies to me before that, though you continually evaded my points. Are you going to answer them, finally? You left me having the last word, I guess that means "I won".

[BaalChatzaf]

Thread: Where is the home of science as we know it?

Mistake: Instant Wikipedia-Based Expertise

> Science as we have come to know it had its start in Samos in the Northern Agean Sea.

No. Ionia** would be more accurate (Thales and post-Thales) if you want to start with Greece rather than the river valley civilizations even earlier.

Baal, you're not the only one who does it (Marotta on a range of topics, ND on the history of the spread of religions, and many others do it here) but what often comes across as just ripping paragraphs out of context from Wikipedia as authoritative or complete -- whether to oversimplify history or Aristotle or Galileo or epistemology any other subject -- is no substitute for having read books, taken courses on the history of science or on other complex subjects on which you want to sound off.

**Yes, you did mention the coast of Turkey further down. Also: You mention Alexandria as -the- high point. That also is too simplistic: Archimedes for example, the most brilliant mathematician-physicist-engineer of that age was from Syracuse, contrary to your statement. And Hellenistic science, engineering, technology didn't just reach a zenith in one city. (And yes, I knew this stuff from decades of reading--I didn't have to cut and paste wikipedia. At least I get the strong feeling that's what you and sometimes others do a lot of the time.)

Archimedes did his best work in Alexandria. He did his most practical work in Syracusa. All those infernal machines and burning mirrors.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

Ionia and Samos are where science got its start. The Greeks took the first step in banishing the Whims of the Gods from human thinking in those parts. Athens, on the other hand, was a "college town". It was the home of the Academy and Lyceum. After Aristotle left Athens the quality an quantity of Athenian output declined noticeably. So why did Aristotle leave (about a year and half before he died)? Because a lynch mob in Athens was taking shape. The towns people were not pleased that Alexander was associated with Alexander the Great and rumbles of impiety charges could be heard round about. Aristotle did not want to see Athens sin against philosophy yet again. (Recall what happened to Socrates).

Ba'al Chatzaf