06-25-2002, 03:03 PM
Hi Goffredo - Sorry, I have not yet read the books, so can not comment on the Cannae chapters. Though from the comments I've read on the book, he - as usual - tries to twist facts that argue against his thesis to fit his own views. How does he explain that a pure mercenary army (Libyans, Numidians, etc.) essentially wiped out the supposedly superior army of "free" men.<br>
<br>
From what I've read, the chapter on Vietnam is even more controversial, though.<br>
<br>
I agree with a lot of what you say (e.g., we are entirely in agreement that democracy is unnatural); however, your picture of Greek (and by extension Western) science is far too idealistic (and doesn't follow the historic evidence).<br>
<br>
Goffredo:<br>
<b><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> But something happened in Greece and in the West; the emphasis was shifted to the proofs. A statement (theorem) without a proof was considered weak if not useless. Putting the emphasis on the proofs made people responsible for their statements. Anyone that found an inconsistency in an argument could stand up and say "the thesis is hogwash". Logic arose when people put a premium on understanding if an argument was sound. The confusion starts and ends here. Argumentation vs faith is where the buck stops.<hr><br>
<br>
Precisely.<br>
<br>
But you strongly overidealize Greek science. For example, Aristotle believed that women had fewer teeth than men but never seems to have hit upon the idea of opening his wife's mouth and counting her teeth. The idea of proving a statement by logic was the essence of Greek science - the idea of proving it by actually observing that it was possible was completely foreign to Greek science. (Need I state that Proof by observation in addition to logic is one of the corner pillars of modern science?)<br>
<br>
I'll quote you Al-Beruni, who precisely agrees with what you feel is science:<br>
<b><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> The trouble with most people is their extravagance in respect of Aristotle's opinions. They believe that there is no possibility of mistake in his views, though they know, that he was only theorizing to the best of his capacity.<hr><br>
<br>
Arab science was driven by the need for proofs; at a time when Western science had decided that everything that was known had already been discovered and proven by Greek "scientists".<br>
<br>
Goffredo wrote:<br>
<b><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> Western culture and the christian religion has been aware of this ever since people, intelligent people, realized the need to define what was the jurisdiction of God and what wasn't: state vs religion, freewill vs no freewill, science vs faith. This is our culture, our heritage and I am convinced it is unique and revolutionary. But it is far from obvious and maybe just an accident of history.<hr><br>
<br>
No - this is a development and influence of the Muslim world. Arab scientists were asking questions and searching for proofs long before the western world finally realized that not everything could be taken as "the word of God". Islam (as well as Christianity, for that matter) has always had a very clear definition of what is the jurisdiction of God and what is the jurisdiction of science. The only difference between the two "cultures" is where that boundary has been, and that boundary moves with the times.<br>
<br>
Adelard of Bath, one of the many "western" scientists who went to the east to learn notes this as early as the 1100s:<br>
<i> It is a little difficult for you and me to argue about animals. I, with reason for my guide, have learned one thing from my Arab teachers, you, something different; dazzled by the outward show of authority you wear a head-stall. For what else should we call authority but a head-stall? Just as brute animals are led by the head-stall where one pleases, without seeing why or where they are being led, and only follow the halter by which they are held, so many of you, bound and fettered as you are by a low credulity, are led into danger by the authority of writers.</i><br>
<br>
That is the comparison of Arab science with "Western"/Hellenistic science from a man who lived it.<br>
<br>
I don't intend to denigrate the Greeks - but science as we have it today (at least by the definition you seem to be going for) didn't start with the Greeks; it started with the Arab scientists of 700-1500 BCE. The Greeks took many important steps along the way - yes - but it was the Arab world that built upon that foundation to develop the science of today. Just as it is with mathematics, where the Greeks built upon the foundations of the Babylonians and Egyptians, and the Arabs again built upon the Greeks. The fact that the Arabs built upon the Greeks does not lessen their contribution, no more than the fact that the Greeks built upon the Egyptians lessens the contribution of the Greeks.<br>
<br>
Regarding the whole science vs faith and state vs religion arguement, I don't buy it. The separation of science vs faith is a very recent event - as Charles Darwin could attest. Are you then going to claim that no science has been done pre-1900s? And most modern states - e.g., Denmark - still have not separated state from religion.<br>
<br>
Your confusion seems to arise from your belief that modern-day Islam as represented by repressive regimes = Islam. It doesn't. Islam has evolved and developed, just like Christianity (and every other religion and culture) has evolved and developed. Unfortunately, Islam is currently in a situation where repression of knowledge and authoritanism is the order of the day - just like was the order of the day for Christianity a few centuries back (and still is today, in some sects). 2-300 years from now, the picture will again be different (and hopefully better).<br>
<br>
Hanson's thesis is built on the idea of a "Western" civilization which has endured from the time of the Greeks. The fact is, there is no such thing. "Western" civilization as we have it today, has changed and mutated under continual influence from external cultures - one of the most important of which have been the Arab culture, which again owes a lot to Persia, etc. - to become what it is today.<br>
<br>
But to return to the thesis you started out with:<br>
<b><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> What characterizes a good argument, a "proof", is the essence of logic (Aristotle). Modern mathematics (Euclid) follows.<hr><br>
<br>
From 700-1500 BCE, the distinctly non-Western Arab culture would have agreed completely with these statements. Algebra (al-Khwarizmi) followed. Whereas "Western" culture would have had you burned on the stake as a heretic. <p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 6/25/02 5:44:24 pm<br></i>
<br>
From what I've read, the chapter on Vietnam is even more controversial, though.<br>
<br>
I agree with a lot of what you say (e.g., we are entirely in agreement that democracy is unnatural); however, your picture of Greek (and by extension Western) science is far too idealistic (and doesn't follow the historic evidence).<br>
<br>
Goffredo:<br>
<b><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> But something happened in Greece and in the West; the emphasis was shifted to the proofs. A statement (theorem) without a proof was considered weak if not useless. Putting the emphasis on the proofs made people responsible for their statements. Anyone that found an inconsistency in an argument could stand up and say "the thesis is hogwash". Logic arose when people put a premium on understanding if an argument was sound. The confusion starts and ends here. Argumentation vs faith is where the buck stops.<hr><br>
<br>
Precisely.<br>
<br>
But you strongly overidealize Greek science. For example, Aristotle believed that women had fewer teeth than men but never seems to have hit upon the idea of opening his wife's mouth and counting her teeth. The idea of proving a statement by logic was the essence of Greek science - the idea of proving it by actually observing that it was possible was completely foreign to Greek science. (Need I state that Proof by observation in addition to logic is one of the corner pillars of modern science?)<br>
<br>
I'll quote you Al-Beruni, who precisely agrees with what you feel is science:<br>
<b><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> The trouble with most people is their extravagance in respect of Aristotle's opinions. They believe that there is no possibility of mistake in his views, though they know, that he was only theorizing to the best of his capacity.<hr><br>
<br>
Arab science was driven by the need for proofs; at a time when Western science had decided that everything that was known had already been discovered and proven by Greek "scientists".<br>
<br>
Goffredo wrote:<br>
<b><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> Western culture and the christian religion has been aware of this ever since people, intelligent people, realized the need to define what was the jurisdiction of God and what wasn't: state vs religion, freewill vs no freewill, science vs faith. This is our culture, our heritage and I am convinced it is unique and revolutionary. But it is far from obvious and maybe just an accident of history.<hr><br>
<br>
No - this is a development and influence of the Muslim world. Arab scientists were asking questions and searching for proofs long before the western world finally realized that not everything could be taken as "the word of God". Islam (as well as Christianity, for that matter) has always had a very clear definition of what is the jurisdiction of God and what is the jurisdiction of science. The only difference between the two "cultures" is where that boundary has been, and that boundary moves with the times.<br>
<br>
Adelard of Bath, one of the many "western" scientists who went to the east to learn notes this as early as the 1100s:<br>
<i> It is a little difficult for you and me to argue about animals. I, with reason for my guide, have learned one thing from my Arab teachers, you, something different; dazzled by the outward show of authority you wear a head-stall. For what else should we call authority but a head-stall? Just as brute animals are led by the head-stall where one pleases, without seeing why or where they are being led, and only follow the halter by which they are held, so many of you, bound and fettered as you are by a low credulity, are led into danger by the authority of writers.</i><br>
<br>
That is the comparison of Arab science with "Western"/Hellenistic science from a man who lived it.<br>
<br>
I don't intend to denigrate the Greeks - but science as we have it today (at least by the definition you seem to be going for) didn't start with the Greeks; it started with the Arab scientists of 700-1500 BCE. The Greeks took many important steps along the way - yes - but it was the Arab world that built upon that foundation to develop the science of today. Just as it is with mathematics, where the Greeks built upon the foundations of the Babylonians and Egyptians, and the Arabs again built upon the Greeks. The fact that the Arabs built upon the Greeks does not lessen their contribution, no more than the fact that the Greeks built upon the Egyptians lessens the contribution of the Greeks.<br>
<br>
Regarding the whole science vs faith and state vs religion arguement, I don't buy it. The separation of science vs faith is a very recent event - as Charles Darwin could attest. Are you then going to claim that no science has been done pre-1900s? And most modern states - e.g., Denmark - still have not separated state from religion.<br>
<br>
Your confusion seems to arise from your belief that modern-day Islam as represented by repressive regimes = Islam. It doesn't. Islam has evolved and developed, just like Christianity (and every other religion and culture) has evolved and developed. Unfortunately, Islam is currently in a situation where repression of knowledge and authoritanism is the order of the day - just like was the order of the day for Christianity a few centuries back (and still is today, in some sects). 2-300 years from now, the picture will again be different (and hopefully better).<br>
<br>
Hanson's thesis is built on the idea of a "Western" civilization which has endured from the time of the Greeks. The fact is, there is no such thing. "Western" civilization as we have it today, has changed and mutated under continual influence from external cultures - one of the most important of which have been the Arab culture, which again owes a lot to Persia, etc. - to become what it is today.<br>
<br>
But to return to the thesis you started out with:<br>
<b><i>Quote:</i></b><hr> What characterizes a good argument, a "proof", is the essence of logic (Aristotle). Modern mathematics (Euclid) follows.<hr><br>
<br>
From 700-1500 BCE, the distinctly non-Western Arab culture would have agreed completely with these statements. Algebra (al-Khwarizmi) followed. Whereas "Western" culture would have had you burned on the stake as a heretic. <p>Strategy<br>
Designer/Developer<br>
Imperium - Rise of Rome</p><i>Edited by: <A HREF=http://pub45.ezboard.com/ustrategym.showPublicProfile?language=EN>StrategyM</A> at: 6/25/02 5:44:24 pm<br></i>
