Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!linus!philabs!cmcl2!lanl!jlg
From: jlg@lanl.ARPA (Jim Giles)
Newsgroups: net.space
Subject: Re: Bronowski and historical fossils
Message-ID: <389@lanl.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 12-Mar-86 21:01:12 EST
Article-I.D.: lanl.389
Posted: Wed Mar 12 21:01:12 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 15-Mar-86 20:39:31 EST
References: <8603090839.AA00847@decwrl.DEC.COM> <277@lanl.ARPA> <12332@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>
Reply-To: jlg@a.UUCP (Jim Giles)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Lines: 87
Keywords: fossils ignorance

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.

>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.  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.  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.

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.  (There was an ancient Greek called Democratus (I think) who
discovered that the Sun was the center of the solar system, and the planets -
including Earth went around it.  He even had the distances about right.
Why don't we know this theory as the 'Democratian System'?  Because his
civilization DIED and Copernicus had to do the work all over again.)

The point of Bronowski's remarks is that if our civilization DIES, those
that follow will have to go through a painful period of time before they
rediscover things we already know.  If they rediscover it through some
of our works that survive or if they independently discover it is not
relevant, it would be a sad thing to put our descendents through.

>...                              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. :-)

> 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.

>The England of 1066 IS around in a very recognizable form: our language.

Which language?  Old english (which I can read, but not speak - the
original Beowulf was really poetry, unlike the translations)?  Old French
(of which I admit total ignorance)?  Modern English didn't settle to its
present form (even approximately) until about the time of Chaucer - about
the time printing was invented.

But, of course, my remark was directed at culture, not language.  And
an Englishman from 1066 would not find much that is familiar about our
culture. (I can't remember the last time I thought of a stirrup as the
'latest thing' in modern warfare.  I'm not the least bit afraid of
traveling through Wales for fear that Druids may capture me for sacrifice.
etc. :-)

>> And yet, the culture
>>formed after the Norman invasion didn't die, it evolved into our culture.
>
>You got it!

I GOT IT??!?  When did I lose it?  That is very much the same as what
Bronowski said to begin with: that is, it would be sad for our culture to
DIE rather than evolve into its own future.

Sorry for all this flaming.  It just irks me when someone seems to be
misunderstanding something deliberately.

J. Giles
Los Alamos