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!cbosgd!hplabs!ucbvax!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
Message-ID: <12370@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 03:26:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.12370
Posted: Fri Mar 14 03:26:26 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 19:33:09 EST
References: <8603090839.AA00847@decwrl.DEC.COM> <277@lanl.ARPA> <12332@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <389@lanl.ARPA>
Sender: usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener)
Followup-To: net.sci
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 86
Keywords: fossils ignorance

I'm redirecting followups to net.sci to give this discussion a better home.

In article <389@lanl.ARPA> jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles) writes:
>In article <12332@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@brahms.UUCP (Matthew P. Wiener) writes:
>>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.
>
>I am one of the VERY FEW people I know who has read much of either.  The
>difference between the Greek world of Homer and Euclid on the one hand and
>the English world of Newton and Shakespeare on the other is similar to the
>difference between Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon.  One lead to us, and the
>other (with the exception of a few RARE cross-breeds) didn't.

It is similar?  Care to explain?  Both lead to us.  What does the phrase
'Western culture' mean?

>>Historically, Euclid's _The Elements_ was the ONLY textbook for learning
>>geometry until the 19th century.
>
>Not true.  Euclid was 'rediscovered' during the Renaissance when western
>culture was again growing.

What other geometry textbook did you have in mind?  The first translation
of _The Elements_ into Latin was in 1142 by Adelard of Bath.  Rediscovery
of Greek learning occurred BEFORE, not during, the Renaissance.

>                            Fortunately, the Arabs managed to keep some of
>the old learning (or, at least, refrained from destroying it).  Unlike
>Ptolemy, Euclid was not an official church priority, so we lost track of it
>for a while.

Ptolemy was as lost as Euclid in the West, and was preserved through Arabic
translation.  Ptolemy became an "official church priority" ONLY because he
was challenged.  The development of non-Euclidean geometry in Galileo's time
would have met just as strong official resistance.

>              That's why they're fossils: they're not part of the
>mainstream.  We only know about them because 'Classical' culture became
>fashionable and some enthusiastic scholars translated a bunch of the stuff
>just in time for printing to get invented.

They ARE part of the mainstream of our culture because they are GOOD, not
because some 'enthusiastic scholars translated a bunch of the stuff just in
time for printing to get invented'.

>This brings me to the point I keep trying to make: when a civilization
>DIES, things are LOST - sometimes it's not forever, but they are lost.  The
>Greek civilization DIED - there is a lack of continuity between the ancient
>Greek civilization and our own.  There is NO such lack between Newton and
>us - we didn't have to rediscover it after it was unknown or obscure for
>centuries.  [Incorrect summary of Aristarchus refuted elsewhere]

Greek civilization was lost ONLY from the European point of view.  From the
point of view of continuity, their tradition kept going strong in the Arab
world and only then re-entered Europe.

>[Bronowski's point not under dispute.]

Your point would be better taken if you get the history correct.

>>...                              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!
>
>I learned geometry from such a book.  But look closer!  The only thing
>Euclidean are the first four postulates!  And they introduce Cartesian
>coordinates in the first chapter!  (It must have been that ancient Greek
>called Descartes instead of the one I'm familiar with. :-)

I make a hobby of collecting old high school and college texts.  I have
a dozen different high school geometries from 1920-1960, and they are all
watered-down Euclidean style geometry.
 
>> But Newton's style was dropped
>>IMMEDIATELY from calculus and physics.
>
>My first calculus text used dots above the variables and called them
>'fluxions'.  That every bit as similar to Newton as my geometry text is
>similar to Euclid.

Newton's *style*, not his notation.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720