http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/01/fuller-full-of-himself/ Sun, 26 May 2013 08:27:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/01/fuller-full-of-himself/#comment-144 David B Wed, 01 Feb 2006 09:25:35 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/01/31/fuller-full-of-himself/#comment-144 Is monotheism necessary for the initiation of science? The ancient Greek and Hellenistic world was polytheistic, but its scientific achievements were not negligible. Most historians would put Archimedes, Aristotle*, Hipparchus, Ptolemy and Galen among the greatest of all scientists. (Not to mention Euclid, Apollonius of Perga, and Diophantus in pure mathematics.) The modern scientific revolution began (with Copernicus, Vesalius, etc) by correcting some of the errors of the Greeks, but it wouldn't have got off the ground without the Greek achievement as a starting point. The real innovation of modern science is its emphasis on systematic empirical testing through experiment and quantitative observation, of which there was comparatively little among the Greeks. But I don't see that monotheism is a necessary condition for this. *Aristotle would count as a great scientist on the strength of his biological work alone. His ideas on physics and cosmology were largely wrong, but you have to start somewhere! Is monotheism necessary for the initiation of science? The ancient Greek and Hellenistic world was polytheistic, but its scientific achievements were not negligible. Most historians would put Archimedes, Aristotle*, Hipparchus, Ptolemy and Galen among the greatest of all scientists. (Not to mention Euclid, Apollonius of Perga, and Diophantus in pure mathematics.) The modern scientific revolution began (with Copernicus, Vesalius, etc) by correcting some of the errors of the Greeks, but it wouldn’t have got off the ground without the Greek achievement as a starting point. The real innovation of modern science is its emphasis on systematic empirical testing through experiment and quantitative observation, of which there was comparatively little among the Greeks. But I don’t see that monotheism is a necessary condition for this.
*Aristotle would count as a great scientist on the strength of his biological work alone. His ideas on physics and cosmology were largely wrong, but you have to start somewhere!

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/01/fuller-full-of-himself/#comment-143 razib Tue, 31 Jan 2006 22:08:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/01/31/fuller-full-of-himself/#comment-143 read starks' books, and he'll tell you that that's "nonsense!" (he really likes to use this as a surefire way to rebut any disagreemants with his hypothesis) though seriously, stark has some interesting data and provocative arguments, but 1) he overplays his hand 2) he makes scholarly errors because he is out of field, and that really undermines his credibility as an erudite interpreter (please see the charles martel discussion in <i>for the glory of god</i>, anyone with a history class in this area will see what i'm talking abut). 3) he is blind to other disciplines who cast doubt on the relevance of the parameters that he works back as the causative factors in intercultural differences. read starks’ books, and he’ll tell you that that’s “nonsense!” (he really likes to use this as a surefire way to rebut any disagreemants with his hypothesis)
though seriously, stark has some interesting data and provocative arguments, but
1) he overplays his hand
2) he makes scholarly errors because he is out of field, and that really undermines his credibility as an erudite interpreter (please see the charles martel discussion in for the glory of god, anyone with a history class in this area will see what i’m talking abut).
3) he is blind to other disciplines who cast doubt on the relevance of the parameters that he works back as the causative factors in intercultural differences.

]]> http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/01/fuller-full-of-himself/#comment-142 Corkscrew Tue, 31 Jan 2006 21:44:16 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2006/01/31/fuller-full-of-himself/#comment-142 If the Chinese universe was unknowable then how come they were coming up with cool maths (the Chinese Remainder Theorem and Pythagoras' Theorem, for example) millennia before Westerners came across them? If the Chinese universe was unknowable then how come they were coming up with cool maths (the Chinese Remainder Theorem and Pythagoras’ Theorem, for example) millennia before Westerners came across them?

]]>