Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!ittatc!dcdwest!sdcsvax!ucbvax!brahms!weemba From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) Newsgroups: net.space Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils Message-ID: <12332@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> Date: Tue, 11-Mar-86 05:58:37 EST Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12332 Posted: Tue Mar 11 05:58:37 1986 Date-Received: Thu, 13-Mar-86 07:45:09 EST References: <8603090839.AA00847@decwrl.DEC.COM> <277@lanl.ARPA> Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 65 Keywords: fossils ignorance In article <277@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes: >>Homer and Euclid fossils? They are studied with respect to this day, >>millennia after they and their cultures died. > >And yet, it is Newton's "Principia Mathematica" that modern students >learn for it's information content - Euclid's works for historical >interest. Yes, Homer and Euclid ARE fossils in comparison to Newton >and Shakespeare. The former are interesting glimpses of a now dead >civilization, the latter are important figures in the development of >our own. What IS this nonsense? Homer, Euclid, Newton, and Shakespeare are both interesting glimpses of a now dead civilization AND are important figures in the development of our own. But fossils? I can only assume YOU don't read Euclid or Homer. Modern students read neither Newton nor Euclid. I've recently made a small hobby of reading them both, and in both cases I've been impressed. Newton, by the way, is much less understandable than Euclid. He does calculus and physics using Euclidean reasoning. As for Euclid, he's actually a rather good writer, even by today's standards. Historically, Euclid's _The Elements_ was the ONLY textbook for learning geometry until the 19th century. The first calculus/physics texts appeared within 50 years of _Principia_. The Euclidean method of doing geometry was unquestioned until around 1900. Textbooks used in this country followed the style of Euclid until around 1960--they left out the hard parts--and it was Sputnik that inspired the change! But Newton's style was dropped IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics. 1960!!!! Hardly a fossil. Nor was it dropped from the curriculum because it became out of date, mind you. It was dropped because it was a difficult approach to geometry, and American high school students have weak minds. Abraham Lincoln put Euclid at the top of the books he self-educated himself with. It taught him how to think and reason clearly. And we can still feel the effects of the Euclidean training on Lincoln to this day. >I think you missed the point of Bronowski's remarks. I think you missed the point of the posting you're complaining about. >Perhaps America won't be around in recognizable form in 2000 years (I >assume you mean the US - America is a set of two continents and is likely >to remain around for a few hundred million more years), but the England of >1066 isn't around in any recognizable form NOW. The England of 1066 IS around in a very recognizable form: our language. Of course, it is not recognizable as 1066ish unless you make an EFFORT to learn about it, but etymology is a very fascinating and revealing subject. If you want to remain ignorant of your own culture, that's your problem. But don't call everything you're ignorant of "fossils", thereby excusing yourself of "charges" of "cultural ignorance". > And yet, the culture >formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture. You got it! And the same goes for Homer and Euclid! We're going to get into space some day, and when we do, Homer and Euclid and 1066 will be taken along, as relevant as ever. Otherwise, why bother? ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720