Evaluation of Roman Science

[SigniferOne]

Not my intention - I think I have pointed out many enough times that there were links between practical and theorethical knowledge. My main point is that there was not, until relatively recently, a great deal of systematic combination of the two.

Endre, I haven't had a chance to reply, but I completely agree with you on the division between "physics" (i.e. natural science in general) and practical application such as engineering. So what I'm saying is that we simply can't expect to find a natural science book, that attempts to have practical applications (e.g. "characteristics of torsion, compared and contrasted").

But granted that that's the case, you still need theoretical science of some kind, to stand behind your inventions, even if it isn't in widely distributed form. As a result, we can gauge the measure of science by the measure of its presence in an advanced work of engineering. Every time we find some advanced work, the Antikythera mechanism, De Rebus Bellicis (a personal discovery for me), we can say that this indicates a high level of science, even if other markers are absent. No ancient writer recorded the invention of gears, yet we can see it, plain as day. No ancient writer recorded the principle of mechanically rowed ships, yet we see a guy putting it down into practice (using gears, I might add!), as plain as day.

You're all beginning to simplify the subject down to engineering. An engineer never lived in a social vacuum, and you're turning the thread towards the easy option and are beginning to ignore a wider picture.

Could you specify what you mean, and what we're simplifying towards?

Maybe you mean that we haven't discussed ancient abstract science yet, which is true -- Theophrastus and Apuleius writing treatises on plant life, etc.