|
|
Re: The need for a well rounded education
Posted:
Dec 22, 2002 7:44 AM
|
|
seaveyw@mail.ecu.edu (Hylourgos) wrote in message news:<9aa6be8c.0212191449.6594adea@posting.google.com>...
> Hey Herman, some feedback...
>
> hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu (Herman Rubin) wrote in message news:<att17b$4cei@odds.stat.purdue.edu>...
> > In article <9aa6be8c.0212190838.7810b7ae@posting.google.com>,
> > Hylourgos <seaveyw@mail.ecu.edu> wrote:
> > >Yea, I was wondering the same thing. Would've been nice to have some
> > >context, so see what set him off, who know, some of us might have
> > >agreed....
>
> > >Anyway, we should all remember that "science" is separated from the
> > >humanities only in recent intellectual history.
> >
> > Only to some extent. There were many philosophers in ancient
> > times who were rather ignorant of science, although this was
> > relative. The progress of science then was slow.
>
> Hmm...By "ancient" you pretty much mean Greek, right? They're pretty
> much the only ancient civilization whose writings on such matters
> survive. The earliest ones, from Asia Minor, tended toward what we
> call "Natural Philosophy" in that they were interested in natural
> phenomena, but as far as I know there is no real split between
> philosophy and science until the 18th century Enlightenment. If you
> know otherwise please cite your evidence so I can read it.
>
> > Aristotle and Plato
> > >both were pretty good mathematicians.
> >
> > They may well have had a school knowledge of the Euclidean
> > geometry of the time. Aristotle's mathematical-philosophical
> > writings are not good.
>
> I think I hear Pythagoras rolling around in his grave about now....
> Just which of Aristotle's M-P writings are you thinking of when you
> say they are "not good"? Have you actually read them? You ignore Plato
> entirely, upon whose shoulders the rest of philosophy rests, as the
> saying goes. He was very interested in math. And to imply that
> Aristotle was not a good mathematician is akin to saying that
> Einstein's algebra was lacking. Most of his (Aristotle's) metaphysical
> and biological works rely on pretty decent math. He would be
> classified by most classicists, BTW--if Aristotle is capable of
> classification--as a biologist.
>
> Also, note that Euclid probably wasn't even born before Aristotle
> died. That anachronism alone tells me that you have not read the
> authors you cavalierly dismiss.
>
> O tempora! O mores!
It’s not an anachronism, "school knowledge of the Euclidean
geometry of the time" is not a reference to The Elements or
any other of Euclid's writings, but to the subject matter
of The Elements. The Elements is an exposition of the Mathematical
knowledge of the times, and did not spring fully armed from
the head of Euclid.
When I studied Euclidean geometry at school we
never referred to a copy of the Elements (probably because some
of the material therein was considered too advanced for secondary
education).
I suspect Herman has a better understanding of the content
of The Elements than you (even if he hasn't read it, and for all I know
he has).
>
> > Also, it is clear that Aristotle did not believe in using
> > observation; the general idea was that the laws of nature
> > could be deduced from reasoning alone.
>
> In addition to noting that he was a biologist primarily, please
> consult his biological works (physica, de caelo, de generatione et
> corruptione, meteorologica, historia animalium, de partibus animalium,
> de motu animalium, de incessu animalium, de generatione animalium,
> among several others that could be mentioned.) and actually read them
> before saying such things. You wouldn't say that if you'd read them.
>
> H
The use of Latin titles of works written in Greek, in fora where
the medium of discourse is English seems a mite pretentious, yes?
RonL
|
|
