UBB.classicTM 6.5.0
quote:So, your religion is divinely inspired, even if God chooses not to and theirs is purely reactionary. Nice.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Apologies for those who do not like What if scenarios, like what if the Nazis had won the war and all that.
But another thread really did get me wondering how things would have turned out for humanity if Christianity never came to exist. As in God decided against sending His only Son or, alternatively, a Galileean carpenter turned preacher never came to achieve messianic status after his death.
Would Islam also not have come into being ? The spread of that religion seems to have happened as a counter measure to the spread of Christianity. And without these two dominant religions would we simply have had a continuation of a vast range of different tribal rituals, superstitions and cult practice, or would Secularism, (what ever that is), come to prominence at a much early stage in our history?
quote:Presumably someone has been able to pinpoint when the last organic generation of Marduk worshippers was born, and what took their place. Or are they still out there? (Not talking about any odd neo-Babylonian movement that no doubt exists somewhere on the internet.) Mildly curious.
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Perhaps by now we'd all be worshipping Marduk...
quote:EVERY religious person thinks their religion is "divinely inspired"/ true and the others aren't-- that's kind of the point. Why in the world would we follow a religion if we didn't think it was true? And really, that holds to every passionately held truth. We believe in something because we think it's true. Other than things that are just a matter of taste (i.e. chocolate mint is better than strawberry) or verifiable empirical truth (gravity is a real thing) that's the very nature of belief-- religious belief, political belief, whatever. To get all snooty about it seems rather silly.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:So, your religion is divinely inspired, even if God chooses not to and theirs is purely reactionary. Nice.
Originally posted by rolyn:
Apologies for those who do not like What if scenarios, like what if the Nazis had won the war and all that.
But another thread really did get me wondering how things would have turned out for humanity if Christianity never came to exist. As in God decided against sending His only Son or, alternatively, a Galileean carpenter turned preacher never came to achieve messianic status after his death.
Would Islam also not have come into being ? The spread of that religion seems to have happened as a counter measure to the spread of Christianity. And without these two dominant religions would we simply have had a continuation of a vast range of different tribal rituals, superstitions and cult practice, or would Secularism, (what ever that is), come to prominence at a much early stage in our history?
quote:This.
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Lots of folks would be worshiping money, fame and power. Thankfully, that doesn't happen anymore.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
quote:It is a poor start to a thought experiment about Christianity not existing by saying "but really it does" and to characterise another religion as purely reactionary. Describing Christianity as reactionary to its circumstances is just as valid.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
EVERY religious person thinks their religion is "divinely inspired"/ true and the others aren't-- that's kind of the point.
quote:No, it was framed in a way that was appropriate on a forum that is specifically targeting Christians who assume that Christianity is true. So the OP is simply saying, given our set of beliefs, what if...
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:It is a poor start to a thought experiment about Christianity not existing by saying "but really it does" and to characterise another religion as purely reactionary. Describing Christianity as reactionary to its circumstances is just as valid.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
EVERY religious person thinks their religion is "divinely inspired"/ true and the others aren't-- that's kind of the point.
It would be simple to say: What would happen if Christianity didn't exist?
That simple sentence.
Christianity and Islam are intertwined, so exploring that is a legitimate part of this experiment. But the way it was presented in the OP is unnecessarily biased.
quote:Which, again, is a perfectly valid thought experiment, since "what ifs" are by definition open to all sorts of presumptions. You, of course, are free to submit a different thought experiment.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
What you are describing is "What if God revealed Christianity in a Different way". Because the OP doesn't eliminate Judaism, but it does dismiss it.
quote:Well, I only sketched it out in my head so if you think this needs to be added then by all means.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I mean, Jesus. I know there has been a big dismissal of Judaism within Christianity, but it is part of the foundation of Christianity. The OP doesn't even mention it.
quote:Would there have been science without monotheism? The Greeks didn't seem inclined that way and they were the best shot the ancient world had. Science is a direct result of the belief that one can learn about God by studying His world. Without the idea that the world is rational because it is the creature of a rational god, we may never have had science.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think the move towards non-belief (and secularism) was inevitable whichever way you look at it, because the advances in science and technology have replaced many religious answers to that why question.
quote:The science-minded Jews went into Kabbala. Not sure science would have emerged from that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Jews are still there, though. That's where you get your science from.
quote:Seriously dude? I can't even...
Originally posted by mousethief:
Would there have been science without monotheism? The Greeks didn't seem inclined that way and they were the best shot the ancient world had.
quote:Point me at the Greek who invented the scientific method. Oh wait. That was a Christian.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Seriously dude? I can't even...
Originally posted by mousethief:
Would there have been science without monotheism? The Greeks didn't seem inclined that way and they were the best shot the ancient world had.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Point me at the Greek who invented the scientific method. Oh wait. That was a Christian.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Seriously dude? I can't even...
Originally posted by mousethief:
Would there have been science without monotheism? The Greeks didn't seem inclined that way and they were the best shot the ancient world had.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
quote:Good thing we monotheists were generous enough to share the good stuff with the Chinese, they might have been stuck in the stone age for years...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Would there have been science without monotheism? The Greeks didn't seem inclined that way and they were the best shot the ancient world had. Science is a direct result of the belief that one can learn about God by studying His world. Without the idea that the world is rational because it is the creature of a rational god, we may never have had science.
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think the move towards non-belief (and secularism) was inevitable whichever way you look at it, because the advances in science and technology have replaced many religious answers to that why question.
quote:Which is not what I've said -- which level of misreading is probably why I've aroused such ire.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Making the assumption that monotheism is inherently more scientific does not appear to have any basis in fact.
quote:I'm almost certain he would have considered himself a monotheist.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, not sure Ibn al-Haytham would have considered himself a Christian.
quote:meh. It was half-tracked from the first.
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
this thread has officially gone off the rails.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:I'm almost certain he would have considered himself a monotheist.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
First, not sure Ibn al-Haytham would have considered himself a Christian.
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
quote:The internet tells me that 22.4% of all Nobel prizes have been won by Jews. Clearly not all of them for science, but ...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The science-minded Jews went into Kabbala. Not sure science would have emerged from that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Jews are still there, though. That's where you get your science from.
quote:I was talking about how science arose, not what's going on now. I don't think science would have arisen from Kabbala, which is where the analytical minds of medieval Judaism seemed to congregate. I may be wrong; that's okay too.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:The internet tells me that 22.4% of all Nobel prizes have been won by Jews. Clearly not all of them for science, but ...
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The science-minded Jews went into Kabbala. Not sure science would have emerged from that.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
The Jews are still there, though. That's where you get your science from.
quote:As one of your links was to Archimedes I'll use him as an example.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Seriously dude?, I can't even...
quote:Oooh. (sings) 'lah lah ...like a pearl in a sea of liquid jade...like a crystal swan in a sky of swans... lah lah'
...We think he became a hawk and flew into a sky of suns in 24 hour daylight from a lake of liquid jade...
quote:I think, it still needs to displace it's weight, so that water would be heading up the sides of the dock as it's descending (unless you can keep the edges sealed as you lower it, easier with a cube).
Originally posted by hatless:
I remember an uncle, many years ago, asking me how much water you would need to float the Queen Mary. A cupful, he said, if you has a dock that was a perfect fit for it.
quote:Agree with you that was his policy and why they returned to Judea, but my understanding is that there was a strong Jewish community in Babylon during the Exile. That is where much of the Hebrew Bible came together, and what is means to be Jewish was codified. The driving force being that they were in a foreign land and wanted to make it clear what was different about them and the other cultures in Babylon. Most of them did not return under Cyrus's offer.
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan: From a historical rather than faith based perspective, I have heard that Cyrus the Great is probably responsible for this not happening. He had a policy of setting Persia apart from earlier empires by letting local populations stay in place (or return from exile) and keep their religious beliefs, rather than enslaving or killing them all. Without that? Judaism probably doesn't make it long enough for Jesus to hit the scene.
quote:I think that the Latin and Greek texts in question were all available before we get to what we now call the Renaissance. Normally we don't talk about the thirteenth century when Aristotle became part of the scholastic canon as the Renaissance.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
In any event... the trajectory of scientific discovery within Renaissance Europe was very much one of re-discovery. The Latin and Greek texts that had been lost to Europe and then copied back from the Arabic and Persian were the starting point. The Arabic and Persian texts that came along with them were the springboard that led to the questioning of the wisdom of the ancients.
quote:This is true. I should add that the non-Chalcedonian Christian groups were just as much involved as Jews under the Islamic courts.
Science was far, far more advanced in North Africa and the ME/Asia during the Middle Ages than in Europe (excepting Spain). And Jews were in the position of being able to translate books from Arabic to Persian to Hebrew to Latin and Greek and back again, serving in royal courts across the Islamic world.
quote:.
How much the Church did to suppress scientific innovation is up for debate, but if the trajectory of Islamic science had continued beyond the 16th century (when, more or less, theology turned against science) then there's little doubt that that would be the real Jonbar point
quote:I have read all the intervening posts but thought I’d go back to this one anyway. I am very firmly of the opinion that science was inevitable, especially since it has been going on since humans started making better stone tools and has gradually come to the present time when changes and improvements (or not) happen in far less time. Whatever religious, faith beliefs there were throughout history, there was the in-built human drive to find out how things worked and then to improve on them. Progress might have been quicker if non-believers, from the earliest unknown ones, via Epicurus and other ancient Greek thinkers to Hume, had been paid more attention to!
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:Would there have been science without monotheism?
Originally posted by SusanDoris:
I think the move towards non-belief (and secularism) was inevitable whichever way you look at it, because the advances in science and technology have replaced many religious answers to that why question.
quote:Science would have happened regardless of whether any god was believed to exist I think. The movements of people, the battles, conquests and defeats would probably have happened differently, but that human drive was, and I’d say, still is, unstoppable.
Science is a direct result of the belief that one can learn about God by studying His world. Without the idea that the world is rational because it is the creature of a rational god, we may never have had science.
quote:You would need more than a cup, I think. Even spread to one water molecule thick, I'm not certain there would be enough surface area to surround the ship.
Originally posted by hatless:
I remember an uncle, many years ago, asking me how much water you would need to float the Queen Mary. A cupful, he said, if you has a dock that was a perfect fit for it.
quote:Why? Judaism isn't an evangelical tradition. When their ties to the state ended, so to did any serious expansion. They are a great religion more for their influence in two that did spread than any expansion themselves. A video time-line. Not a perfect example as Christianity doesn't exist in this thought experiment and Islam would be different if it did exist.
Originally posted by ACK:
I think without Christianity, the Pharisees vision would have filled more or less the space Christianity takes. I am assuming in that, that Paul, in the absence of Christianity, had put his zeal behind it.
quote:You're missing the point. It's not that Archimedes was incomplete or wrong. It's that he didn't use experiments to establish or test his theory. He reached it by a priori geometric reasoning. Science is an enterprise to which experimental testing is central.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That Archimedes didn't fully present a unified floating theory does not invalidate him as an example of (rudimentary in his case) scientific approach outside of monotheism. Just as the shortcomings of Newton's gravitational theory do not invalidate him.
quote:So, Einstein didn't do science? Science begins as an exploration. Experiments strengthen the hypothesis, but it needed to start somewhere. You are shaving the nits off camel's back so that it can fit through a needle. Or something.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:You're missing the point. It's not that Archimedes was incomplete or wrong. It's that he didn't use experiments to establish or test his theory. He reached it by a priori geometric reasoning. Science is an enterprise to which experimental testing is central.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
That Archimedes didn't fully present a unified floating theory does not invalidate him as an example of (rudimentary in his case) scientific approach outside of monotheism. Just as the shortcomings of Newton's gravitational theory do not invalidate him.
quote:Science is a social enterprise. You can participate even if you aren't doing experiments yourself. And there are some branches of science where experiments aren't entirely feasible (e.g. palaeontology, string theory). But the enterprise is based around an ideal of submitting theories to experimental or at least empirical verification. That's why in the last two hundred years our culture has been excited about science in a way that the Romans and Greeks were not.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:So, Einstein didn't do science? Science begins as an exploration. Experiments strengthen the hypothesis, but it needed to start somewhere.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Science is an enterprise to which experimental testing is central.
quote:I'd be interested in reading Galileo's account - do you have a reference for that experiment? I looked through his Discourse on Floating Bodies briefly but didn't see it. (He does seem pretty supportive of Archimedes against Renaissance detractors, though.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I must have got the revised version of Archimedes' principle wrong somehow. (If my statement were correct no part of an object less dense than water would sit under the water.) The point stands that Galileo's experiment floated a wooden rod in water that weighed less than the rod. According to Archimedes that shouldn't be possible.
quote:Did you see my link to Wootton's book in my later post? I don't have the book to hand so I can't look up Wootton's references.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:I'd be interested in reading Galileo's account - do you have a reference for that experiment? I looked through his Discourse on Floating Bodies[/URL] briefly but didn't see it. (He does seem pretty supportive of Archimedes against Renaissance detractors, though.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I must have got the revised version of Archimedes' principle wrong somehow. (If my statement were correct no part of an object less dense than water would sit under the water.) The point stands that Galileo's experiment floated a wooden rod in water that weighed less than the rod. According to Archimedes that shouldn't be possible.
quote:It's not an explanation. It's a proof. Does nobody read Euclid anymore?
In any case, it seems to me your criticism of Archimedes depends on taking a rather narrow view of what he meant by "the weight of the fluid displaced". Galileo's experimental result is in agreement with Archimedes if the "fluid displaced" is taken to be "the volume below the surface which is occupied by the object rather than fluid." I think this is justified by his explanation of Proposition 5 in On Floating Bodies, in which the portion of the "fluid displaced" is identified as being equal to the portion of the it "immersed when the fluid is at rest."
quote:I got "immersed when the fluid is at rest" from "On floating bodies" (see previous link) so that's what I think Archimedes meant by "fluid displaced."
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Did you see my link to Wootton's book in my later post? I don't have the book to hand so I can't look up Wootton's references.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:I'd be interested in reading Galileo's account - do you have a reference for that experiment? I looked through his Discourse on Floating Bodies[/URL] briefly but didn't see it. (He does seem pretty supportive of Archimedes against Renaissance detractors, though.)
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think I must have got the revised version of Archimedes' principle wrong somehow. (If my statement were correct no part of an object less dense than water would sit under the water.) The point stands that Galileo's experiment floated a wooden rod in water that weighed less than the rod. According to Archimedes that shouldn't be possible.
quote:It's not an explanation. It's a proof. Does nobody read Euclid anymore?
In any case, it seems to me your criticism of Archimedes depends on taking a rather narrow view of what he meant by "the weight of the fluid displaced". Galileo's experimental result is in agreement with Archimedes if the "fluid displaced" is taken to be "the volume below the surface which is occupied by the object rather than fluid." I think this is justified by his explanation of Proposition 5 in On Floating Bodies, in which the portion of the "fluid displaced" is identified as being equal to the portion of the it "immersed when the fluid is at rest."
Anyway I got the error in Archimedes' proof wrong. Archimedes is correct in the case that he is considering. That case is where the fluid is free to move across the entire sphere. (See the diagram.) It's just that it doesn't apply in the cases which he doesn't consider, namely where the fluid is in a bounded container and therefore cannot move sideways without limit. My point is that the only situation in which he could have experimentally tested his results would be in a bounded container - to which his result does not apply - so the fact that he doesn't mention those cases shows that he never tested his results experimentally.
The interpretation of 'immersed when the fluid is at rest' seems to me clearly to mean 'immersed once the fluid has settled down and is not moving'. If I understand Wootton's explanation, this is not true. In the general case the volume that is displaced is equal not to the volume of the object underwater once the water is at rest but to the volume of the object under the original surface level without the object.
quote:Yet people move on from their spiritual heritage all the time. New religions and religious movements wouldn't exist if that weren't the case. Christians are particularly prone to this, ISTM.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I understand that Buddhism has a much more civilised approach to schisms than does Christianity.
PS. I don't think that (one type of) Christianity is the only inspired religion, but I can't change my spiritual heritage.
quote:Can you give us a link to the book ? Sounds worth a read.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've actually done this in a book: no Christianity, and no Islam (partly for balance, and partly because I think ... well, maybe without ME Christianity, there might not have been Islam, or at least a radically different Islam).
quote:Ditto (or at least different in many bits). Whatever extent God had in the creation of and response to Islam the base would have been totally different (so he'd have had to act differently for the same effects, or the same for different-to the extent that saying God must is meaningful).
Originally posted by Russ:
I'd agree - Mohammed was inspired by Christianity, so no Islam as such in this alternate reality.
America colonised by the Vikings ?
Weaker Europe (no Holy Roman Empire).
What happens to the Ottoman empire without Islam ?
quote:OK. I agree with you on your interpretation of Archimedes. Apologies if I was not clear. Archimedes is clearly talking about the volume of the object below the water at equilibrium. And I think Wootton agrees with you too.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:I got "immersed when the fluid is at rest" from "On floating bodies" (see previous link) so that's what I think Archimedes meant by "fluid displaced."
Originally posted by Dafyd:
The interpretation of 'immersed when the fluid is at rest' seems to me clearly to mean 'immersed once the fluid has settled down and is not moving'. If I understand Wootton's explanation, this is not true. In the general case the volume that is displaced is equal not to the volume of the object underwater once the water is at rest but to the volume of the object under the original surface level without the object.
I don't see why one should prefer Wootton's interpretation of Archimedes' phrase to Archimedes' own interpretation ("For let the solid be EGHF, and let BGHC be the portion of it immersed when the fluid is at rest" - assuming that T.L. Heath, "sometime fellow of Trinity College", knew what he was translating.) Why insist that it meant "the volume of the object under the original surface level without the object?" Why should we think that Archimedes believed the original surface level had anything to do with it? If there are other people than Wootton who have pointed out Archimedes' supposed error, it seems odd (though not conclusive) that it doesn't seem to show up in Google searches.
If "fluid displaced" means "volume below the water line at rest" and not "volume below original water line" then Archimedes will agree with Galileo's observation; this doesn't provide support for the contention that Archimedes never experimented.
quote:Thanks for the timeline - really interesting.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Why? Judaism isn't an evangelical tradition. When their ties to the state ended, so to did any serious expansion. They are a great religion more for their influence in two that did spread than any expansion themselves. A video time-line. Not a perfect example as Christianity doesn't exist in this thought experiment and Islam would be different if it did exist. Still, Judaism spread as a component of the state, no reason to think it would when it wasn't.
quote:Rome and the Sasanians would still have exhausted themselves and created a vacuum for Muhammad. I fail to see how the absence of a Syriac minority would have prevented the rise of Islam in reaction to polytheism and Judaism alone. I see these things as sinks not saddles in chaos terms.
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:Can you give us a link to the book ? Sounds worth a read.
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've actually done this in a book: no Christianity, and no Islam (partly for balance, and partly because I think ... well, maybe without ME Christianity, there might not have been Islam, or at least a radically different Islam).
I'd agree - Mohammed was inspired by Christianity, so no Islam as such in this alternate reality.
America colonised by the Vikings ?
Weaker Europe (no Holy Roman Empire).
What happens to the Ottoman empire without Islam ?
quote:If you Google 'Galileo Archimedes Principle' a link to the relevant passage in the book appears six or seven entries down.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I can't address Wootton's argument directly - for me, the link you gave doesn't lead to a specific passage, and the Galileo/Archimedes bit doesn't seem to be in the free sample Google provides.
quote:I think it is natural to take 'the volume of fluid displaced' to mean the volume of the portion of [the body] below the original level of the fluid. Because that's the fluid that's actually been displaced. Maybe the problem lies with the translation. Archimedes has to find some way to talk about the volume in which there is no fluid because that volume is occupied by the floating body, and maybe 'fluid displaced' is the best way to do so. In the case Archimedes considers there is no difference. But in any case where the level of water changes there is a difference. The phraseology in the translation is at the most generous ambiguous. And clearly either Archimedes or the translator didn't spot that.
But I don't see anything wrong with Archimedes' principle as presented by Archimedes - that is, the volume of "fluid displaced" is the volume of the "portion of [the body] immersed when the fluid is at rest."
quote:I think that if Book II is about boat-like shapes it is as in the joke about spherical cows. He's talking about solids formed by rotation which, aside from coracles and such like, boats are not.
Maybe Archimedes did experiments, maybe he didn't. (If he wasn't interested in the practical applications, it's kind of a mystery that he spent so much of Book II examining the flotation of boat-like shapes.) But I don't think he made any errors that make it obvious that he didn't do experiments. For that project, I suspect Aristotle is a better target.
quote:The Queen Mary drew 39', was close to 1000' long at the waterline, and had a 118' beam. That gives it a wetted area of something like 140,000 square feet when afloat.
Originally posted by Jay-Emm:
quote:I think, it still needs to displace it's weight, so that water would be heading up the sides of the dock as it's descending
Originally posted by hatless:
I remember an uncle, many years ago, asking me how much water you would need to float the Queen Mary. A cupful, he said, if you has a dock that was a perfect fit for it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
quote:Maybe so when you Google it; I get a couple of Google Books results, but Wootton isn't among them.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If you Google 'Galileo Archimedes Principle' a link to the relevant passage in the book appears six or seven entries down.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I can't address Wootton's argument directly - for me, the link you gave doesn't lead to a specific passage, and the Galileo/Archimedes bit doesn't seem to be in the free sample Google provides.
quote:"Clearly"? Maybe Archimedes didn't say anything about the "original level of the fluid" because he realized, correctly, that it's entirely irrelevant to the problem. All that matters is how much volume is below the surface at rest, which is what Archimedes says. I don't see why one should insist on a reading which runs counter to the text, unless it's really important to show an error (which Galileo himself doesn't seem to complain about) to support an argument about lack of experiments.
quote:I think it is natural to take 'the volume of fluid displaced' to mean the volume of the portion of [the body] below the original level of the fluid. Because that's the fluid that's actually been displaced. Maybe the problem lies with the translation. Archimedes has to find some way to talk about the volume in which there is no fluid because that volume is occupied by the floating body, and maybe 'fluid displaced' is the best way to do so. In the case Archimedes considers there is no difference. But in any case where the level of water changes there is a difference. The phraseology in the translation is at the most generous ambiguous. And clearly either Archimedes or the translator didn't spot that.
But I don't see anything wrong with Archimedes' principle as presented by Archimedes - that is, the volume of "fluid displaced" is the volume of the "portion of [the body] immersed when the fluid is at rest."
quote:Good point.
quote:I think that if Book II is about boat-like shapes it is as in the joke about spherical cows. He's talking about solids formed by rotation which, aside from coracles and such like, boats are not.
Maybe Archimedes did experiments, maybe he didn't. (If he wasn't interested in the practical applications, it's kind of a mystery that he spent so much of Book II examining the flotation of boat-like shapes.) But I don't think he made any errors that make it obvious that he didn't do experiments. For that project, I suspect Aristotle is a better target.
quote:Yes, it's clear that Wootton is trying to make that case - but this is pretty weak evidence. ("Ah, but Archimedes never explicitly considered narrow containers - and if we ignore his gloss on "fluid displaced" and replace it with our own which critically relies on an "original level" to which he never refers, he's wrong - which proves he never did experiments!")
The point of addressing Archimedes is that he's the strongest case and the most likely counterexample to the generalisation. If Archimedes falls on the applied mathematician side of the applied mathematician/ physicist line then it's plausible that all Greek natural philosophers did so.
quote:So, if Christianity never existed, would the Queen Mary Rose have been launched in a tea cup in 1434?
Originally posted by Dave W.:
quote:Maybe so when you Google it; I get a couple of Google Books results, but Wootton isn't among them.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:If you Google 'Galileo Archimedes Principle' a link to the relevant passage in the book appears six or seven entries down.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
I can't address Wootton's argument directly - for me, the link you gave doesn't lead to a specific passage, and the Galileo/Archimedes bit doesn't seem to be in the free sample Google provides.quote:"Clearly"? Maybe Archimedes didn't say anything about the "original level of the fluid" because he realized, correctly, that it's entirely irrelevant to the problem. All that matters is how much volume is below the surface at rest, which is what Archimedes says. I don't see why one should insist on a reading which runs counter to the text, unless it's really important to show an error (which Galileo himself doesn't seem to complain about) to support an argument about lack of experiments.
quote:I think it is natural to take 'the volume of fluid displaced' to mean the volume of the portion of [the body] below the original level of the fluid. Because that's the fluid that's actually been displaced. Maybe the problem lies with the translation. Archimedes has to find some way to talk about the volume in which there is no fluid because that volume is occupied by the floating body, and maybe 'fluid displaced' is the best way to do so. In the case Archimedes considers there is no difference. But in any case where the level of water changes there is a difference. The phraseology in the translation is at the most generous ambiguous. And clearly either Archimedes or the translator didn't spot that.
But I don't see anything wrong with Archimedes' principle as presented by Archimedes - that is, the volume of "fluid displaced" is the volume of the "portion of [the body] immersed when the fluid is at rest."quote:Good point.
quote:I think that if Book II is about boat-like shapes it is as in the joke about spherical cows. He's talking about solids formed by rotation which, aside from coracles and such like, boats are not.
Maybe Archimedes did experiments, maybe he didn't. (If he wasn't interested in the practical applications, it's kind of a mystery that he spent so much of Book II examining the flotation of boat-like shapes.) But I don't think he made any errors that make it obvious that he didn't do experiments. For that project, I suspect Aristotle is a better target.quote:Yes, it's clear that Wootton is trying to make that case - but this is pretty weak evidence. ("Ah, but Archimedes never explicitly considered narrow containers - and if we ignore his gloss on "fluid displaced" and replace it with our own which critically relies on an "original level" to which he never refers, he's wrong - which proves he never did experiments!")
The point of addressing Archimedes is that he's the strongest case and the most likely counterexample to the generalisation. If Archimedes falls on the applied mathematician side of the applied mathematician/ physicist line then it's plausible that all Greek natural philosophers did so.
quote:See now that's an interesting thought. I think the reverse is true: without Christianity, we'd probably have invented something else to take its place in our cultures.
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Really gone off! Pooh!!!
The thread is about religion not science.
Let's face it without Judio/Christianity/Islam, certainly in Britain we'd all still be building monoliths, stone circles and chasing each other with clubs.
Three cheers for the Flintstones.
I'm Wilma in disguise! Watch out or I'll make you eat dinosaur stew.
quote:I'll just point out that you don't know what case Wootton is trying to make as you haven't read him. He isn't directly reflecting on Archimedes' practice - that's a conclusion I've drawn from his argument about Galileo.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
]Yes, it's clear that Wootton is trying to make that case - but this is pretty weak evidence.
quote:Archimedes does not gloss 'fluid displaced'. He equates it with the volume of the body under water. An equation of two physical quantities is not a gloss of the name of one of the quantities.
("Ah, but Archimedes never explicitly considered narrow containers - and if we ignore his gloss on "fluid displaced" and replace it with our own which critically relies on an "original level" to which he never refers, he's wrong - which proves he never did experiments!")
quote:Well, it kinda depends. If you take the OPs position that everything is the same except no Jesus, then yes. Because all the reasons for Jesus would still exist. This then becomes what other way did God reveal the TRUTH.ᵗᵐ
Originally posted by ACK:
My feeling is that maybe without Christianity, Judaism would have filled that space is because I suspect the time was right for something to spread out of Judaism.
quote:And never the two shall meet?
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Really gone off! Pooh!!!
The thread is about religion not science.
quote:A great dismissal of the other religious traditions that did science independently of the those three.
Let's face it without Judio/Christianity/Islam, certainly in Britain we'd all still be building monoliths, stone circles and chasing each other with clubs.
quote:Sorry - I meant clear from what I thought was your representation of Wootton. You haven't provided a usable link, or even a quote, so you're quite correct that I can't be sure how much of this is coming from you and how much is coming from him.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I'll just point out that you don't know what case Wootton is trying to make as you haven't read him. He isn't directly reflecting on Archimedes' practice - that's a conclusion I've drawn from his argument about Galileo.
Originally posted by Dave W.:
]Yes, it's clear that Wootton is trying to make that case - but this is pretty weak evidence.
quote:I don't know why you're quibbling over the term gloss ("a brief explanation of a difficult or obscure word or expression"), but if you insist on "equation" then Archimedes still gets exactly the right answer.
quote:Archimedes does not gloss 'fluid displaced'. He equates it with the volume of the body under water. An equation of two physical quantities is not a gloss of the name of one of the quantities.
("Ah, but Archimedes never explicitly considered narrow containers - and if we ignore his gloss on "fluid displaced" and replace it with our own which critically relies on an "original level" to which he never refers, he's wrong - which proves he never did experiments!")
quote:No, I'm pointing out that he indicates exactly what he means in the text immediately following the statement of the proposition, which leads to the right answer. You (and possibly Wootton, I don't know!) seem to be insisting on an interpretation based only on what you think is "natural" and that ignores what he wrote.
You are assuming that because Archimedes cannot have made a mistake he cannot have literally meant 'fluid that has been displaced' and must have meant the correct volume.
quote:Oh I would, would I? I'm not at all confident of your ability to spot schoolboy errors regarding Archimedes' principle; I can't imagine the basis for your opinion on what assumption I would make.
If you found the equivalent formulation (and didn't recognise it) in a schoolboy exam paper you would assume that the schoolboy had made a schoolboy error.
quote:I'm sure the number of errors Archimedes doesn't warn you to avoid is limitless.
At the very least from Archimedes' text one wouldn't realise that it was an error that one had to avoid.
quote:(Think you may have been sarcastic, but in any case)
Originally posted by wild haggis:
Let's face it without Judio/Christianity/Islam, certainly in Britain we'd all still be building monoliths, stone circles and chasing each other with clubs.
quote:While they consider, Islamic monotheism embraced Greek scientific discovery whereas Christian rejected it for a thousand years.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Dave W and Dafyd:
The geek slap-fight is interesting and all, but I've a question for you:
Do you think monotheism is important to scientific discovery?
That is the claim that started this tangent.
Dafyd, the difference between Einstein and Archimedes is one of time. The scientific method is prescriptive, yes. So you can make the argument that Archy didn't use that. But his was one of making that first observation, that first leap. That he didn't stick the landing is a secondary issue to the exploration of the how of universe that is the basis of science.
quote:I don't think it is now (although intellectual environments that don't share a couple of deep features with monotheism may not be conducive to it).(*)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you think monotheism is important to scientific discovery?
quote:I am not sure what you are saying here nor what reasons you think you're giving that I should agree with you.
Dafyd, the difference between Einstein and Archimedes is one of time. The scientific method is prescriptive, yes. So you can make the argument that Archy didn't use that. But his was one of making that first observation, that first leap. That he didn't stick the landing is a secondary issue to the exploration of the how of universe that is the basis of science.
quote:Seriously? God created everything in six days: boom. That? That you think is intellectually stimulating for science? Or were you meaning other monotheistic religions than Christianity, Judaism and Islam?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I don't think it is now (although intellectual environments that don't share a couple of deep features with monotheism may not be conducive to it).(*)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you think monotheism is important to scientific discovery?
(*) The feature here is roughly that the universe is such as to be intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified.
quote:No jury necessary. Those who think this is a factor are confusing stability and natural progress with influence from religion.
Do I think monotheism was important to the birth and early development of the sixteenth/seventeenth century scientific revolution. The jury is out.
quote:Ibn al-Haytham. But anyway, he is the father of the scientific method, not science.
The first scientist who can reasonably be called experimental, Alhazen, was a monotheist.
quote:In a culture that happened to be monotheistic during a time when people were making scientific progress.
The scientific revolution took place in a largely monotheist culture.
quote:When China was in decline. But no, it must have been the Christians.
China, despite an impressive tradition of natural philosophy, never had a scientific revolution. China was philosophically more advanced than Europe at almost every point up to the fifteenth century; by the end of the seventeenth century Jesuits earned a place in the Qing Emperors court by explaining Western astronomy.
quote:I don't think the point was that everything about monotheism automatically leads to rigorous application of the scientific method. Rather, it's that monotheism contains within itself the ideas that eventually give rise to the scientific method.
Seriously? God created everything in six days: boom. That? That you think is intellectually stimulating for science? Or were you meaning other monotheistic religions than Christianity, Judaism and Islam?
quote:So far, the only "proof" for monotheism has been coincidence. Still waiting for anything else.
Originally posted by Stetson:
lilbuddha wrote:
quote:I don't think the point was that everything about monotheism automatically leads to rigorous application of the scientific method. Rather, it's that monotheism contains within itself the ideas that eventually give rise to the scientific method.
Seriously? God created everything in six days: boom. That? That you think is intellectually stimulating for science? Or were you meaning other monotheistic religions than Christianity, Judaism and Islam?
Whether that's true or not, I don't know, but I don't think you can refute the argument simply by pointing out instances of monotheists, even in their sacred texts, making unscientific claims.
quote:Ishmael was Abraham's first son, by Hagar, his wife's serving woman, and Sarah threw her and Ishmael out after Isaac was born, Muslims claim him as their forefather, the *eldest* son of Abraham and therefore senior to Isaac and his descendants.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
AFAIUI Islam owes a certain amount to Christianity and Judaism. Muhammad is believed to have had considerable contact with both Christians and Jews, and Jesus is revered as a prophet.
quote:I have moved on in the sense that I have left a more exclusivist open brethren upbringing to a faith that looks more to interdenominational and interfaith dialogue and understanding and away from the Book of Rules and propositional and systematic theology. But icons, statues (whether of saints, Christ, Buddha, Bodhisattvas, etc) and grand architecture I find interesting, but not spiritually inspiring as others do.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
quote:Yet people move on from their spiritual heritage all the time. New religions and religious movements wouldn't exist if that weren't the case. Christians are particularly prone to this, ISTM.
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
I understand that Buddhism has a much more civilised approach to schisms than does Christianity.
PS. I don't think that (one type of) Christianity is the only inspired religion, but I can't change my spiritual heritage.
In what sense does Buddhism have a more civilised approach to schism than Christianity?
quote:Presumably Latin would have continued to be the language of learned discourse in Western Europe after the fall of the Empire, Christian or not. Of course it's entirely a matter of conjecture what institutions would have continued to preserve classical learning.
Originally posted by Ohher:
I keep thinking that, with no Christianity, the governance and history of medieval Europe would have been so different, without a Church -- and celibacy -- to send all those best and brightest minds into . . .
Would there have been a lingua franca like Latin for scholars from different countries to confab in? That would have been a serious drag on scientific advancement . . .
quote:It is a fundamental alternative history for modern Muslims despite "it is estimated that 131 traditions say Isaac was the son, while 133 say Ishmael [ancestor of the Arabs]." because the Qu'ran does not name the son.
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
quote:Ishmael was Abraham's first son, by Hagar, his wife's serving woman, and Sarah threw her and Ishmael out after Isaac was born, Muslims claim him as their forefather, the *eldest* son of Abraham and therefore senior to Isaac and his descendants.
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
AFAIUI Islam owes a certain amount to Christianity and Judaism. Muhammad is believed to have had considerable contact with both Christians and Jews, and Jesus is revered as a prophet.
I have an idea that they tell the story of Abraham's willingness to sacrifice Isaac, but with Ishmael as the son concerned.
GG
quote:Yes. (Not the six days bit obviously.)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:Seriously? God created everything in six days: boom. That? That you think is intellectually stimulating for science?
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I don't think it is now (although intellectual environments that don't share a couple of deep features with monotheism may not be conducive to it).(*)
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you think monotheism is important to scientific discovery?
(*) The feature here is roughly that the universe is such as to be intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified.
quote:And you think you're able to generalise about people who disagree with you because?
quote:No jury necessary. Those who think this is a factor are confusing stability and natural progress with influence from religion.
Do I think monotheism was important to the birth and early development of the sixteenth/seventeenth century scientific revolution. The jury is out.
quote:If you routinely refer to Aristoteles and Platon, and never talk about Averroes and Avicenna, sure.
quote:Ibn al-Haytham. But anyway, he is the father of the scientific method, not science.
The first scientist who can reasonably be called experimental, Alhazen, was a monotheist.
quote:I do not see any reason to suppose that China was any more in decline during the early years of the Qing than during the early years of the Ming or Song or Tang.
quote:When China was in decline. But no, it must have been the Christians.
China, despite an impressive tradition of natural philosophy, never had a scientific revolution. China was philosophically more advanced than Europe at almost every point up to the fifteenth century; by the end of the seventeenth century Jesuits earned a place in the Qing Emperors court by explaining Western astronomy.
quote:The counter to that is "God makes it happen, nothing further needed." That is a more logical following of the text.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A culture that wasn't monotheistic would probably not have come up with the concept of laws governing nature.
quote:Because there is no proof. Nothing to test, therefore it must not be right.
And you think you're able to generalise about people who disagree with you because?
quote:Science evolved from other branches of thought. There is no clean dividing line, even today.
It seems to me that if we're talking about science in any kind of privileged sense that distinguishes it from other branches of human knowledge then we're talking about the use of the scientific method.
quote:It would take a secondary tangent on the history and stability of China at various points to work this out. And I think this tangent is way to big anyway.
I do not see any reason to suppose that China was any more in decline during the early years of the Qing than during the early years of the Ming or Song or Tang.
quote:The Renaissance.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What am I missing in my dotage?
quote:Not as such.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Do you think monotheism is important to scientific discovery?
quote:Some monotheists have thought that way. That's irrelevant to whether other monotheists thought another way. Monotheists have been known to disagree among themselves.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The counter to that is "God makes it happen, nothing further needed." That is a more logical following of the text.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A culture that wasn't monotheistic would probably not have come up with the concept of laws governing nature.
quote:
The ‘laws of nature’, by those who first used the term in this sense, were viewed as commands imposed by the Deity upon matter
quote:This is blatantly untrue.
quote:Because there is no proof. Nothing to test, therefore it must not be right.
And you think you're able to generalise about people who disagree with you because?
quote:This is true, but not relevant.
quote:Science evolved from other branches of thought. There is no clean dividing line, even today.
It seems to me that if we're talking about science in any kind of privileged sense that distinguishes it from other branches of human knowledge then we're talking about the use of the scientific method.
quote:Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries managed to feed curiosity and progress. It wasn't obviously more stable or free than any other period of European history.
quote:It would take a secondary tangent on the history and stability of China at various points to work this out. And I think this tangent is way to big anyway.
I do not see any reason to suppose that China was any more in decline during the early years of the Qing than during the early years of the Ming or Song or Tang.
Stability, freedom and time are the necessary ingredients to feed curiosity and progress. This leads to science becoming more rigorous, not God.
quote:The Bible. Nothing in it implicitly encourages scientific exploration.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
You want to believe it is a more logical following of the text (which text?
quote:Really cute.
have you been taking stylistic tips from Aijalon's posts?).
quote:As are yours.
Your post is entirely made up of statements for which there is no proof and cannot be tested.
quote:Link to stability and scientific progress.
Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries managed to feed curiosity and progress. It wasn't obviously more stable or free than any other period of European history.
quote:How so Sir? Do I not agree with my betters here who deny that we have Christianity as a whole to thank for modern science? On the contrary? Or, more nuanced, it delayed it by a thousand years and then rapidly facilitated it, an analogy being a dynamic chemical reaction which exponentially tilts? But the swing, though rapid and sufficient, cannot give us back the time that was lost? Probably half a millennium at least?
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:The Renaissance.
Originally posted by Martin60:
What am I missing in my dotage?
quote:Do you have any evidence for that?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
All I see is temporal coincidence.
quote:sigh
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Do you have any evidence for that?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
All I see is temporal coincidence.
quote:ISTM, what you are describing is more projection than proof.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:sigh
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Do you have any evidence for that?
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
All I see is temporal coincidence.
Science progresses with time. As our understanding builds it moves forward. The coincidence is the rise of powers that happen to be monotheistic occurred relatively recently, after huge amounts of the basic building blocks of science were laid.
Proof? There can be no proof. I am going with the more logical, less exceptional interpretation.
quote:First off, it should be noted that a polytheist like Archimedes was able to derive "laws governing nature" like the principles of buoyancy or leverage, so the concept obviously isn't completely alien to non-monotheists. In fact, I've heard it argued that because Greek religion was such a non-explanatory hodge-podge it actually encouraged the search for answers or patterns in non-religious ways. I'm not sure I buy that particular argument, but it's at least as plausible as saying that non-monotheists are incapable of recognizing and analyzing patterns in nature.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Some monotheists have thought that way. That's irrelevant to whether other monotheists thought another way. Monotheists have been known to disagree among themselves.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The counter to that is "God makes it happen, nothing further needed." That is a more logical following of the text.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A culture that wasn't monotheistic would probably not have come up with the concept of laws governing nature.
quote:
In the pre-modern world, a firestorm of accusations of atheism and wickedness awaited anyone who raised a powerful and persuasive alternate answer to some question whose traditional answer depended on God. This firestorm fell even if the author in question never made any atheist arguments, which, generally, they didn’t. It happened often, and fiercely.
Thomas Hobbes awoke one such firestorm when his Leviathan suggested that savage man, living in a state of terror and war in his caves and trees, might through reason and self-interest alone come together and develop society and government. Until that time, Europe had no explanation for how government came to be other than that God instituted it; no explanation for kings other than that God raised them to glory; no explanation for what glue should hold men together, loyal to the law, other than fear of divine punishment. Hobbes’ alternative does not say “There is no God,” but it says, “Government and society arose without God’s participation,” a political theory which an atheist and a theist might equally use. It gives the atheist an answer, and thereby so terrified England that she passed law after law against “atheism” specifically and personally targeting Hobbes and banning him from publishing in genre after genre, until he spent his final years producing bad translations of Homer and filling them with not-so-subtle Hobbesian political notions one can spot between the lines.
quote:I think you mean "geocentrism".
Originally posted by mousethief:
Allow me to humbly point out that heliocentrism, for all the RCC defended it, was not a Christian invention. We inherited it from the Greeks, specifically Ptolemy I believe. It is not a "goddidit" explanation.
quote:Right you are. Apologies.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:I think you mean "geocentrism".
Originally posted by mousethief:
Allow me to humbly point out that heliocentrism, for all the RCC defended it, was not a Christian invention. We inherited it from the Greeks, specifically Ptolemy I believe. It is not a "goddidit" explanation.
quote:It also plainly contradicts the evidence of the eyes. Anybody, scientist or moron, can see that the sun moves across the sky. To accept heliocentrism is to give up what is obvious for a theoretical construct which is invisible. It's the ultimate in trusting the math over the evidence. The chief argument for it was that it makes a more elegant and mathematically simple system of equations and diagrams. It's Occam's Razor in spite of the evidence of everyone's eyes. It's an amazing leap. The term "Copernican Revolution" has become something of a cliché (and of course a pun) but at the time it really was a revolution. A huge leap.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The main objection to heliocentrism from the point of view of a seventeenth century Christian is that it contradicts several Biblical passages stating that the Earth is fixed and does not move. The idea that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, while troubling, was considered a second order problem to the idea that the Earth was actually in motion.
quote:There were other, more complicated pragmatic arguments against the idea that the apparent motion of the Sun was actually the rotation of the Earth (e.g. if the Earth was spinning a man who leapt into the air in Athens would land somewhere in near Corinth, the Earth having spun away while he was aloft), but none of these were actually cited by the Church at Galileo's trial.
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:It also plainly contradicts the evidence of the eyes. Anybody, scientist or moron, can see that the sun moves across the sky. To accept heliocentrism is to give up what is obvious for a theoretical construct which is invisible. It's the ultimate in trusting the math over the evidence.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The main objection to heliocentrism from the point of view of a seventeenth century Christian is that it contradicts several Biblical passages stating that the Earth is fixed and does not move. The idea that the Earth wasn't the center of the Universe, while troubling, was considered a second order problem to the idea that the Earth was actually in motion.
quote:Archimedes called his principles postulates, as Euclid calls the theorems in his book. He didn't call them laws. He doesn't use a metaphor of anything governing anything. So Archimedes is conceptually grouping the theory of floating bodies with Pythagoras' theorem and he is not likening his theories to laws. I think that in order for someone to have the same concept as we do it has to cover roughly the same sort of conceptual space. A postulate is something that you prove from axioms without reference to empirical observation as Archimedes proved his principles. A law of nature is not.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:First off, it should be noted that a polytheist like Archimedes was able to derive "laws governing nature" like the principles of buoyancy or leverage, so the concept obviously isn't completely alien to non-monotheists. In fact, I've heard it argued that because Greek religion was such a non-explanatory hodge-podge it actually encouraged the search for answers or patterns in non-religious ways. I'm not sure I buy that particular argument, but it's at least as plausible as saying that non-monotheists are incapable of recognizing and analyzing patterns in nature.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Some monotheists have thought that way. That's irrelevant to whether other monotheists thought another way. Monotheists have been known to disagree among themselves.
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:The counter to that is "God makes it happen, nothing further needed." That is a more logical following of the text.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
A culture that wasn't monotheistic would probably not have come up with the concept of laws governing nature.
quote:I'm not aware of any monotheists who gave the answer 'Goddidit' to any question. I've never seen the word used except by an atheist and I don't think before the internet.
At any rate, from an historical perspective Goddidit seems to be the predominant answer monotheists come up with when faced with unanswered questions and get quite upset when alternative explanations are proposed.
quote:
Opposition to heliocentrism is an a well-known and obvious example, but it extends even to fields we'd consider non-scientific, such as political science.
quote:This would seem to be an exaggeration.
Until that time, Europe had no explanation for how government came to be other than that God instituted it; no explanation for kings other than that God raised them to glory; no explanation for what glue should hold men together, loyal to the law, other than fear of divine punishment.
quote:Book 1, Chapter 10.1
But forasmuch as we are not by ourselves sufficient to furnish ourselves with competent store of things needful for such a life as our nature doth desire, a life fit for the dignity of man; therefore to supply those defects and imperfections which are in us living single and solely by ourselves, we are naturally induced to seek communion and fellowship with others. This was the cause of men’s uniting themselves at the first in politic Societies, which societies could not be without Government, nor Government without a distinct kind of Law from that which hath been already declared.
quote:Book I, Chapter 10, 4.
To take away all such mutual grievances, injuries, and wrongs, there was no way but only by growing unto composition and agreement amongst themselves, by ordaining some kind of government public, and by yielding themselves subject thereunto; that unto whom they granted authority to rule and govern, by them the peace, tranquillity, and happy estate of the rest might be procured. Men always knew that when force and injury was offered they might be defenders of themselves; they knew that howsoever men may seek their own commodity, yet if this were done with injury unto others it was not to be suffered, but by all men and by all good means to be withstood; finally they knew that no man might in reason take upon him to determine his own right, and according to his own determination proceed in maintenance thereof, inasmuch as every man is towards himself and them whom he greatly affecteth partial; and therefore that strifes and troubles would be endless, except they gave their common consent all to be ordered by some whom they should agree upon: without which consent there were no reason that one man should take upon him to be lord or judge over another; because, although there be according to the opinion of some very great and judicious men a kind of natural right in the noble, wise, and virtuous, to govern them which are of servile disposition1; nevertheless for manifestation of this their right, and men’s more peaceable contentment on both sides, the assent of them who are to be governed seemeth necessary.
quote:But with a vastly diminished Judaism and no Christianity, would there have been an Islam, at least in a form anything like the Islam that actually developed?
Originally posted by Ohher:
Since Judaism doesn’t actively proselytize, it’s likely that religious group would have remained relatively small. After the Romans destroyed the Second Temple on the 9th of Av in the Hebrew year 3830, the Diaspora would have further diminished this group’s influence. The Roman pantheon, with the current Caesar as high priest / god, would have become the dominant religion up until ancient Rome fell. A kind of amalgam of assorted Northern pagan traditions and Roman beliefs/practices including both animal and human sacrifice would have held sway until Islam, founded in the early (CE) 600s, began to spread westward.
quote:Maybe we'd simply have continued on dating ab urbe condita, making this the year 2770 AUC.
Originally posted by Ohher:
If there were no Christianity, there would now be no dividing line between the era we used to call Before Christ (or now, Before the Common Era) and the era we’re in now: Anno Domini, or (now) C.E.
What is now the Common Era 2017 might instead be dated from the dissolution of the Roman Empire in 1453, so it would now be the year 564. Or possibly it would now be 1541, since we could be dating the current era from the collapse of ancient Rome in 476.
quote:"Relative" to what? The massive number of Jews in the world today? (Slightly less than 0.2% of the global population.) An alternative view is that the Jews might be doing a lot better in the absence of nearly two millennia of Christian pogroms, expulsions, and forced conversions. Quite frankly I'm not seeing any evidence that the existence of Christianity was anything other than a hindrance to Jewish survival for most of the period since the destruction of the Second Temple.
Originally posted by Ohher:
Since Judaism doesn’t actively proselytize, it’s likely that religious group would have remained relatively small. After the Romans destroyed the Second Temple on the 9th of Av in the Hebrew year 3830, the Diaspora would have further diminished this group’s influence.
quote:First off, given the syncretic influence of Christianity on Islam, I'm not sure you can postulate its development in exactly the same way in a world without Christianity.
Originally posted by Ohher:
A kind of amalgam of assorted Northern pagan traditions and Roman beliefs/practices including both animal and human sacrifice would have held sway until Islam, founded in the early (CE) 600s, began to spread westward.
As the Middle Eastern Islamic peoples, with better-organized societies and more advanced technologies, worked their way into southern and central Europe, they easily defeated the pagan tribes and converted these.
quote:Interestingly this puts special and general relativity outside the category of "laws of nature". They were rather famously derived from postulates rather than empirical observation.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Archimedes called his principles postulates, as Euclid calls the theorems in his book. He didn't call them laws. He doesn't use a metaphor of anything governing anything. So Archimedes is conceptually grouping the theory of floating bodies with Pythagoras' theorem and he is not likening his theories to laws. I think that in order for someone to have the same concept as we do it has to cover roughly the same sort of conceptual space. A postulate is something that you prove from axioms without reference to empirical observation as Archimedes proved his principles. A law of nature is not.
quote:Diminished doesn't mean vanished. And the Jews historically -- even though relatively few in numbers -- have nearly always attracted the attentions of those whom they lived among. Their devotion to their traditions and understanding of themselves as The Chosen People, their maintaining their scriptural language, practices and worship, observance of their Sabbath, etc. have always set them apart. As we know, this notice has often proved deadly.
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
But with a vastly diminished Judaism and no Christianity, would there have been an Islam, at least in a form anything like the Islam that actually developed?
quote:As I understand it the postulate in question was an interpretation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment (namely that light travels at a constant speed relative to an observer regardless of the observer's motion). I wouldn't really call that an axiom.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Interestingly this puts special and general relativity outside the category of "laws of nature". They were rather famously derived from postulates rather than empirical observation.
Originally posted by Dafyd:A postulate is something that you prove from axioms without reference to empirical observation as Archimedes proved his principles. A law of nature is not.
quote:It seems to be an artificial distinction to claim that Einstein's use of observations by Michelson & Morley doesn't count as an axiom but that Archimedes claim that "a solid lighter* than a fluid will, if immersed in it, not be completely submerged, but part of it will project above the surface" does. Both seem equally amenable to observation, though different levels of technical sophistication may be required.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:As I understand it the postulate in question was an interpretation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment (namely that light travels at a constant speed relative to an observer regardless of the observer's motion). I wouldn't really call that an axiom.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:Interestingly this puts special and general relativity outside the category of "laws of nature". They were rather famously derived from postulates rather than empirical observation.
Originally posted by Dafyd:A postulate is something that you prove from axioms without reference to empirical observation as Archimedes proved his principles. A law of nature is not.
quote:Archimedes Proposition 4 is not an axiom because Archimedes deduces it from earlier propositions and from his postulate 1 (which is an axiom).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems to be an artificial distinction to claim that Einstein's use of observations by Michelson & Morley doesn't count as an axiom but that Archimedes claim that "a solid lighter* than a fluid will, if immersed in it, not be completely submerged, but part of it will project above the surface" does. Both seem equally amenable to observation, though different levels of technical sophistication may be required.
quote:Oddly my 'original' assertion connected that idea to non-monotheistic systems as well. But you don't mention that. So either you innocently misunderstood the post, which is possible or you've deliberately misunderstood the post, which is equally possible.
Still, this seems rather like moving the goalposts from your original assertion connecting monotheism to the idea that "the universe is such as to be intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified". Archimedes certainly didn't think that buoyancy was incomprehensible, or that leverage was a purely localized phenomenon.
quote:Some aspects of the universe appear comprehensible, consistent and unified and some do not. The weather for example appears neither comprehensible, consistent, nor unified. Diseases do not appear comprehensible, consistent or unified. Inductive reasoning works sometimes and fails to work other times.
People don't just arbitrarily assume that the universe is "intellectually comprehensible, consistent, and unified", they notice that it is so, which would seem to be as much of an observation of physical reality as the Michaelson-Morley experiment.
quote:We would not have had the old schoolyard joke about you-reeker
Originally posted by Martin60:
What if Archimedes had never existed?
quote:Terrific stuff. I think that observing and noticing are not raw experiences; in other words, they are shrouded by assumptions, or if you like, undercurrents which are guesses.
Some aspects of the universe appear comprehensible, consistent and unified and some do not. The weather for example appears neither comprehensible, consistent, nor unified. Diseases do not appear comprehensible, consistent or unified. Inductive reasoning works sometimes and fails to work other times.
There are appearances of consistency too. But you don't just notice that the appearances of consistency are guides to the underlying nature of the world, and that the appearances of inconsistency are misleading.
In order to notice that the world is consistent, comprehensible and unified you have to use inductive reasoning. But inductive reasoning is notoriously not rationally founded; in order to consider it reliable you have to have a prior assumption that the world is consistent and unified enough for inductive reasoning to work.
quote:That stinks.
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:We would not have had the old schoolyard joke about you-reeker
Originally posted by Martin60:
What if Archimedes had never existed?
quote:In whole, Archimedes' Postulate 1 from On Floating Bodies is translated into English as something like:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Archimedes Proposition 4 is not an axiom because Archimedes deduces it from earlier propositions and from his postulate 1 (which is an axiom).
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems to be an artificial distinction to claim that Einstein's use of observations by Michelson & Morley doesn't count as an axiom but that Archimedes claim that "a solid lighter* than a fluid will, if immersed in it, not be completely submerged, but part of it will project above the surface" does. Both seem equally amenable to observation, though different levels of technical sophistication may be required.
On your account Archimedes decided to deduce the thing that was amenable to observation, whereas postulate 1 'Let it be supposed that a fluid is of such a character etc.' which appears rather less amenable to observation is just supposed.
quote:The Greeks regarded postulates slightly differently than we do. We treat them as "things which are assumed but cannot be directly proven". They considered them more along the lines of "things which are so inherently obvious that proof is unnecessary."
Let it be supposed that a fluid is of such a character that, its parts lying evenly and being continuous, that part which is thrust the less is driven along by that which is thrust the more; and that each of its parts is thrust by the fluid which is above it in a perpendicular direction if the fluid be sunk in anything and compressed by anything else.
quote:Your assertion was "I don't think it is now", in response to the question of whether monotheism is important to scientific discovery. You then went on to speculate that monotheism was critical to scientific discovery in the past, because monotheism supposedly has certain inherent properties, such as:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Oddly my 'original' assertion connected that idea to non-monotheistic systems as well. But you don't mention that.
Still, this seems rather like moving the goalposts from your original assertion connecting monotheism to the idea that "the universe is such as to be intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified". Archimedes certainly didn't think that buoyancy was incomprehensible, or that leverage was a purely localized phenomenon.
quote:The obvious test here is whether someone operating not just in a non-monotheist milieu but a pre-monotheist one would or could treat "the universe [as] intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified". Archimedes would seem to qualify. Arguably others would as well.
The feature here is roughly that the universe is such as to be intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified. This is obviously shared by the leading forms of scientific materialism, and AIUI by e.g. Chinese philosophy; but not by, say, Lovecraftian materialism.
quote:I think the idea that floating bodies less dense than water stick out of the water might qualify under that definition. Yet Archimedes decides to prove that in Proposition 4.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:In whole, Archimedes' Postulate 1 from On Floating Bodies is translated into English as something like:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Archimedes Proposition 4 is not an axiom because Archimedes deduces it from earlier propositions and from his postulate 1 (which is an axiom).
On your account Archimedes decided to deduce the thing that was amenable to observation, whereas postulate 1 'Let it be supposed that a fluid is of such a character etc.' which appears rather less amenable to observation is just supposed.
quote:The Greeks regarded postulates slightly differently than we do. We treat them as "things which are assumed but cannot be directly proven". They considered them more along the lines of "things which are so inherently obvious that proof is unnecessary."
Let it be supposed that a fluid is of such a character that, its parts lying evenly and being continuous, that part which is thrust the less is driven along by that which is thrust the more; and that each of its parts is thrust by the fluid which is above it in a perpendicular direction if the fluid be sunk in anything and compressed by anything else.
quote:To be pedantic, the second half says that the lower bits of a fluid are pressed to the side by the bits of fluid (or other material) above it.
At any rate, Archimedes' Postulate 1 seems more a definition of what is meant by "fluid" than anything else. It consists of two properties which, in less rigidly technical language would seem to boil down to "if you push on a fluid it will get out of your way and redistribute itself to places where you're not pushing on it" (the bit before the semi-colon) and "the lower bits of a body of fluid are pressed down by the bits of fluid above it".
quote:Your restatement of postulate one seems to be amenable to observation. However, as I noted it's not Archimedes' statement. I don't think one could easily observe that the fluid is pushing on itself internally. One could probably deduce it, but Archimedes doesn't. Again, one could probably deduce from observations that the lower parts of the fluid are pushed sideways but Archimedes doesn't.
It also seems like something which not only can be observed, the first half of Postulate 1 is the subject of the second-most famous (though likely apocryphal*) observation of physical phenomena in history. People who know nothing else about Archimedes of Syracuse are familiar with Vitruvius' account of his bath. So our options here are either that the events happened as Vitruvius described and Archimedes observed Postulate 1 in action, or Vitruvius made it up to add a bit of color to Archimedes' own rather dry and technical style, which shows that an observable demonstration of Postulate 1 in action was immediately obvious to Vitruvius, who was much less technically proficient than Archimedes.
Either way, Postulate 1 seems very amenable to observation.
quote:I'm not sure by what criteria Chinese philosophy isn't pre-monotheist and Archimedes is pre-monotheist. I can't think of any that are relevant. You could point out that Greek philosophy is causally contributory to philosophical monotheism, but I don't think that supports your argument.
quote:Your assertion was "I don't think it is now", in response to the question of whether monotheism is important to scientific discovery. You then went on to speculate that monotheism was critical to scientific discovery in the past, because monotheism supposedly has certain inherent properties, such as:
quote:Originally posted by Dafyd:
Still, this seems rather like moving the goalposts from your original assertion connecting monotheism to the idea that "the universe is such as to be intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified". Archimedes certainly didn't think that buoyancy was incomprehensible, or that leverage was a purely localized phenomenon.
Oddly my 'original' assertion connected that idea to non-monotheistic systems as well. But you don't mention that.
quote:The obvious test here is whether someone operating not just in a non-monotheist milieu but a pre-monotheist one would or could treat "the universe [as] intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified". Archimedes would seem to qualify. Arguably others would as well.
The feature here is roughly that the universe is such as to be intellectually comprehensible, consistent and unified. This is obviously shared by the leading forms of scientific materialism, and AIUI by e.g. Chinese philosophy; but not by, say, Lovecraftian materialism.
quote:Actual historically existing monotheists have usually claimed that God does not operate on whim.
To go a bit further the concept of an ordered universe doesn't seem like a necessary characteristic of monotheism. It's just as easy to imagine that a universe which only operates by the whim of a single omnipotent being might be chaotic and unpredictable.
quote:The highlighted bit would seem to be just as true of any of Euclid's postulates.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:I think the idea that floating bodies less dense than water stick out of the water might qualify under that definition. Yet Archimedes decides to prove that in Proposition 4.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The Greeks regarded postulates slightly differently than we do. We treat them as "things which are assumed but cannot be directly proven". They considered them more along the lines of "things which are so inherently obvious that proof is unnecessary."
The change in the view of axioms that you describe is I believe attributable to the consideration of Euclid's Fifth Postulate. Euclid's Fifth Postulate (wikipedia calls it the Parallel Postulate) was for a long time thought not quite so inherently obvious that proof was unnecessary. And finally it was realised that it is something assumed but which cannot be directly proven (since in non-Euclidean geometries it isn't necessarily true).
So it would seem that Euclid was rather closer to the modern definition than to ours.
quote:Fluid flowing would seem to be the obviously observable (as well as etymologically obvious) example of fluid pushing sideways on itself internally. As I said earlier, postulate 1 seems to be more along the lines of Archimedes defining what he means by "fluid".
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Your restatement of postulate one seems to be amenable to observation. However, as I noted it's not Archimedes' statement. I don't think one could easily observe that the fluid is pushing on itself internally. One could probably deduce it, but Archimedes doesn't. Again, one could probably deduce from observations that the lower parts of the fluid are pushed sideways but Archimedes doesn't.
quote:And yet they're always going on about "mysterious ways", which would seem to violate the "intellectually comprehensible" part of your formulation. You can't go around calling something 'ineffable' and then claim you can eff it.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:Actual historically existing monotheists have usually claimed that God does not operate on whim.
To go a bit further the concept of an ordered universe doesn't seem like a necessary characteristic of monotheism. It's just as easy to imagine that a universe which only operates by the whim of a single omnipotent being might be chaotic and unpredictable.
quote:I think a more interesting question is not whether monotheism is necessary for the scientific revolution (i.e. history unfolding as it did), but rather whether it's necessary for any scientific revolution (i.e. any reasonably possible history). This is, by necessity, a lot more speculative, but the fact that the putative contributions made by monotheism to the scientific revolution (comprehensible universe, etc.) were 'on offer' elsewhere would seem to answer the question in the negative.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I think I said before the argument is not that monotheism is sufficient for the scientific revolution, but that it was necessary. (Or to be less stringent certain aspects of monotheism were causally contributory.)
quote:To an historian the question of "what happened, and why did it happen?" is infinitely more interesting than the question "what might have happened." If only on the grounds that the former admits the possibility of an answer.
I think a more interesting question is not whether monotheism is necessary for the scientific revolution (i.e. history unfolding as it did), but rather whether it's necessary for any scientific revolution (i.e. any reasonably possible history). This is, by necessity, a lot more speculative, but the fact that the putative contributions made by monotheism to the scientific revolution (comprehensible universe, etc.) were 'on offer' elsewhere would seem to answer the question in the negative.
quote:Oh, I think they can eff it. It is yet another special case construction.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You can't go around calling something 'ineffable' and then claim you can eff it.
quote:Yes.
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:The highlighted bit would seem to be just as true of any of Euclid's postulates.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
And finally it was realised that it is something assumed but which cannot be directly proven (since in non-Euclidean geometries it isn't necessarily true).
quote:It's an obvervable effect of fluid pushing on itself internally. There is a difference between an observable effect and an explanation in terms of what is going on within the fluid. Any division of the fluid into parts that push against each other is arbitrary. (That is, until you assume atoms (or molecules); but Archimedes goes on to talk about larger arbitrary volumes.
quote:Fluid flowing would seem to be the obviously observable (as well as etymologically obvious) example of fluid pushing sideways on itself internally.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I don't think one could easily observe that the fluid is pushing on itself internally. One could probably deduce it, but Archimedes doesn't. Again, one could probably deduce from observations that the lower parts of the fluid are pushed sideways but Archimedes doesn't.
quote:I am not convinced - he doesn't use the word 'defined', nor does he say that a fluid is a type of material substance - but the distinction may be merely performative. I don't see anything in the postulate that isn't true of a malleable solid.
As I said earlier, postulate 1 seems to be more along the lines of Archimedes defining what he means by "fluid".
quote:'Always'? The degree to which monotheists go on about it varies from monotheist to monotheist.
quote:And yet they're always going on about "mysterious ways", which would seem to violate the "intellectually comprehensible" part of your formulation. You can't go around calling something 'ineffable' and then claim you can eff it.[/QB]
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Actual historically existing monotheists have usually claimed that God does not operate on whim.
quote:I'll note that the putative contributions that you're talking about, that are on offer elsewhere, are those that I said were required to keep the scientific revolution going; not the additional contributions specific to (appropriate variants of) monotheism that I said in the second post were required to get it started.
quote:This is, by necessity, a lot more speculative, but the fact that the putative contributions made by monotheism to the scientific revolution (comprehensible universe, etc.) were 'on offer' elsewhere would seem to answer the question in the negative.
Originally posted by Dafyd:
As I think I said before the argument is not that monotheism is sufficient for the scientific revolution, but that it was necessary.