08-27-2008, 04:45 PM
I am afraid that I no longer know how to respond. For instance:
Which brings us to Archimedes, and you can read the answer in an earlier post: it is his method - using mathematics to describe the phenomena. That is a Babylonian method (system-A and system-B for example); no one denies that it was transplanted to Alexandria (sources mentioned above: Simplicius, Calippean Calender Reform, Astronomical Canon, Ibn Khaldun); and as far as we know, that is where Archimedes picked it up.
What to think of:
I might go on. I might point out that by your own definition of science, that it should be true, the Almagest and the Geography are bad examples - the heliocentric theory is simply wrong and you can circumnavigate Africa. In fact, I might add, the mathematics of the Almagest are a step backward, because you need algebra, as the Chaldaeans and Kepler understood, not the geometrical approach. Ptolemy is just as great, good, or bad, as Kidinnu; the heliocentric system is just as bad, good, or important, as system-A.
I might add that after I have explained that Babylonian science is, whatever it is, not superstituous, your remark that it is superstituous is an ignoratio elenchi. The correct refutation would have been to prove that system-A and system-B are religious after all.
And this is why I now terminate my contributions to this thread. I can continue to explain, but the balance between the amount of time I spend here and the results I achieve, is not very promising. I must now make a choice: if I stay, I must start to explain what an ignoratio elenchi is (because you obviously do not recognize it), perhaps point out why a counterfactual thesis is not permitted, and explain that your remark about the comments in the Loeb boils down to accepting the Loeb translator's argumenta ad hominem. In short, if I continue, I must explain the most basic rules of evidence.
One final remark. I am Dutch. I think I can write more or less correct English, but I will always remain as blunt as my compatriots. Where an Englishman says "this is an interesting chapter", a Dutchman will say "I couldn't make sense of it", and where someone in England would say "this is very detailed", the Dutch say "the author confuses important and unimportant things". I am afraid that this final reply is also more blunt than I want it to be; if I sound impolite now that I break off my contributions, I apologize.
Summa summarum: I have referred to types of sources. I have referred to modern publications. Read the original sources and read articles/books by people who can judge both Babylonian and Greek information, I'd say, and ignore the innuendo of classicists contributing to the Loeb series.
Quote:Could you show me how this surge of Babylonian translations changed Aristotle's science, or the Botany of Theophrastus? Or the historiography of Thucydides and Ephorus? Did something in these translations have to do with the mathematics or inventions of Archimedes?The first examples are of course irrelevant because they are earlier than the surge of Babylonian translations. The same applies to the two historians, who are -needless to point out- not scientists but scholars, or perhaps one should say: moralists. So, these examples were beside the point. Besides, it must be noted that Aristotle sort of lost the war against the new science after c.300 (and Epicurean criticism, I must add); all Aristotle's books are now lost - what we have are his college dictates, published by Alexander of Aphrodisias the beginning of our era.
Which brings us to Archimedes, and you can read the answer in an earlier post: it is his method - using mathematics to describe the phenomena. That is a Babylonian method (system-A and system-B for example); no one denies that it was transplanted to Alexandria (sources mentioned above: Simplicius, Calippean Calender Reform, Astronomical Canon, Ibn Khaldun); and as far as we know, that is where Archimedes picked it up.
What to think of:
Quote:Greek pseudo-science started from ChaldaeansSimply wrong. The Greeks already had a full panoply of magic practices in the fifth century.
I might go on. I might point out that by your own definition of science, that it should be true, the Almagest and the Geography are bad examples - the heliocentric theory is simply wrong and you can circumnavigate Africa. In fact, I might add, the mathematics of the Almagest are a step backward, because you need algebra, as the Chaldaeans and Kepler understood, not the geometrical approach. Ptolemy is just as great, good, or bad, as Kidinnu; the heliocentric system is just as bad, good, or important, as system-A.
I might add that after I have explained that Babylonian science is, whatever it is, not superstituous, your remark that it is superstituous is an ignoratio elenchi. The correct refutation would have been to prove that system-A and system-B are religious after all.
And this is why I now terminate my contributions to this thread. I can continue to explain, but the balance between the amount of time I spend here and the results I achieve, is not very promising. I must now make a choice: if I stay, I must start to explain what an ignoratio elenchi is (because you obviously do not recognize it), perhaps point out why a counterfactual thesis is not permitted, and explain that your remark about the comments in the Loeb boils down to accepting the Loeb translator's argumenta ad hominem. In short, if I continue, I must explain the most basic rules of evidence.
One final remark. I am Dutch. I think I can write more or less correct English, but I will always remain as blunt as my compatriots. Where an Englishman says "this is an interesting chapter", a Dutchman will say "I couldn't make sense of it", and where someone in England would say "this is very detailed", the Dutch say "the author confuses important and unimportant things". I am afraid that this final reply is also more blunt than I want it to be; if I sound impolite now that I break off my contributions, I apologize.
Summa summarum: I have referred to types of sources. I have referred to modern publications. Read the original sources and read articles/books by people who can judge both Babylonian and Greek information, I'd say, and ignore the innuendo of classicists contributing to the Loeb series.
