Explores the methods, instruments, and observations of the ancient astronomers, noting their significance to modern science and the importance of such findings as Stonehenge and American Indian petroglyphs.

Late ancient Platonists discuss two theories in which geometric entities xplain natural phenomena : the regular polyhedra of geometric atomism and the ccentrics and epicycles of astronomy. Simplicius explicitly compares the status of the first to the hypotheses of the astronomers. The point of omparison is the fallibility of both theories, not the reality of the entities postulated. Simplicius has strong realist commitments as far as astronomy is concerned. Syrianus and Proclus, too, do not consider the polyhedra (...) as devoid of physical reality. Proclus rejects epicycles and eccentrics, but accepts the reality of material homocentric spheres, moved by their own souls. The spheres move the astral objects contained in them, which, however, add motions caused by their own souls. The epicyclical and eccentric hypotheses are useful, as they help us to understand the complex motions resulting from the interplay of spherical motions and volitional motions of the planets. Yet astral souls do not think in accordance with human theoretical constructs, but rather grasp the complex patterns of their motions directly. Our understanding of astronomy depends upon our own cognition of intelligible patterns and their mathematical images. (shrink)

Architecture of ancient Egypt is criss-crossed by a series of giant projects whose aim was to celebrate the divine nature of the Pharaohs and their rights to eternal afterlife. In many of such projects a complex interplay between idealization of symbols in hieroglyph writings and shaping of built objects and cultural landscapes can be seen. Since the afterlife destination of the Pharaohs was in the sky, astronomy plays a relevant role in understanding this interplay, as it occurs, in (...) particular, in the Khufu project at Giza and in the planning of Akhenaten’s capital at Amarna. (shrink)

In Hellenistic Astronomy: The Science in Its Contexts, renowned scholars address questions about what the ancient science of the heavens was and the numerous contexts in which it was pursued.

At some time around 200 A.D., the Stoic philosopher and teacher Cleomedes delivered a set of lectures on elementary astronomy as part of a complete introduction to Stoicism for his students. The result was _The Heavens, _the only work by a professional Stoic teacher to survive intact from the first two centuries A.D., and a rare example of the interaction between science and philosophy in late antiquity. This volume contains a clear and idiomatic English translation—the first ever—of _The Heavens, (...) _along with an informative introduction, detailed notes, and technical diagrams. This important work will now be accessible to specialists in both ancient philosophy and science and to readers interested in the history of astronomy and cosmology but with no knowledge of ancient Greek. (shrink)

In Science before Socrates, Daniel W. Graham argues against the belief that the Presocratic philosophers did not produce any empirical science and that the first major Greek science, astronomy, did not develop until at least the time of Plato. Instead, Graham proposes that the advances made by Presocratic philosophers in the study of astronomy deserve to be considered as scientific contributions.

Geoffrey Lloyd engages in a wide-ranging exploration of what we can learn from the study of ancient civilizations that is relevant to fundamental problems, both intellectual and moral, that we still face today. These include, in philosophy of science, the question of the incommensurability of paradigms, the debate between realism and relativism or constructivism, and between correspondence and coherence conceptions of truth. How far is it possible to arrive at an understanding of alien systems of belief? Is it possible (...) to talk meaningfully of 'science' and of its various constituent disciplines, 'astronomy' 'geography' 'anatomy' and so on, in the ancient world? Are logic and its laws universal? Is there one ontology - a single world - to which all attempts at understanding must be considered to be directed? When we encounter apparently very different views of reality, how far can that be put down to a difference in conceptions of what needs explaining, or of what counts as an explanation, or to different preferred modes of reasoning or styles of inquiry? Do the notions of truth and belief represent reliable cross-cultural universals? In another area, what can ancient history teach us about today's social and political problems? Are the discourses of human nature and of human rights universally applicable? What political institutions do we need to help secure equity and justice within nation states and between them? Lloyd sets out to answer all these questions, and to argue that the study of the science and culture of ancient Greece and China provided a precious resource in order to advance a wealth of modern debates. (shrink)

Mathematical Astronomy as the most developed branch of ancient exact sciences has been widely discussed - especially epistemological issues e.g. concerning astronomy as a prime example of the distinction between instrumentalist and realist understanding of theories. In contrast to these the very methodology of ancient astronomy has received little attention. Following the work of Jaakko Hintikka and Unto Remes Aristarchus' method of determining the distance of the Sun is sketched and Ptolemy's solar model is discussed (...) in detail. (shrink)

Geoffrey Lloyd engages in a wide-ranging exploration of what we can learn from the study of ancient civilisations that is relevant to fundamental problems, both intellectual and moral, that we still face today. How far is it possible to arrive at an understanding of alien systems of belief? Is it possible to talk meaningfully of 'science' and of its various constituent disciplines, 'astronomy', 'geography', 'anatomy', and so on, in the ancient world? Are logic and its laws universal? (...) Is there one ontology - a single world - to which all attempts at understanding must be considered to be directed? When we encounter apparently very different views of reality, how far can that be put down to a difference in conceptions of what needs explaining, or of what counts as an explanation, or to different preferred modes of reasoning or styles of inquiry? Do the notions of truth and belief represent reliable cross-cultural universals? In another area, what can ancient history teach us about today's social and political problems? Are the discourses of human nature and of human rights universally applicable? What political institutions do we need to help secure equity and justice within nation states and between them? Lloyd sets out to answer all these questions, and to convince us that the science and culture of ancient Greece and China provide precious resources to advance modern debates. (shrink)

This essay examines the quantitative aspects of Greco-Roman science, represented by a group of established disci¬plines, which since the fourth century BC were called mathēmata or mathē¬ma¬tikai epistē¬mai. In the group of mathēmata that in Antiquity normally comprised mathematics, mathematical astronomy, harmonics, mechanics and optics, we have also included geography. Using a dataset based on The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Natural Scientists, our essay considers a community of mathēmatikoi (as they called themselves), or ancient scientists (as they are (...) defined for the purposes of the present paper) from a sociological point of view, focusing on the size of the scientific population known to us and its disciplinary, temporal and geographical distribution. A diachronic comparison of neighboring and partly overlapping communities, ancient scientists and philosophers, allows the pattern of their interrelationship to be traced. An examination of centers of science throughout ancient history reveals that there were five major centers – Athens, Alexandria, Rhodes, Rome and Byzantium/Constantinople – that appear and replace one another in succession as leaders. These conclusions serve to reopen the issue of the place of mathēmata and mathēmatikoi in ancient society. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:American Journal of Philology 125.1 (2004) 140-144 [Access article in PDF] C. J. Tuplin and T. E. Rihll, eds. Science and Mathematics in Ancient Greek Culture. Foreword by Lewis Wolpert. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. xvi + 379 pp. 21 black-and white ills. 3 tables. Cloth, $80. It has become something of a truism to say that, whatever their ambitions for abstraction, scientists remain profoundly caught up in (...) the life of their culture. Yet, that is a truism only at a certain level. No one is surprised to hear that Euclid had to eat and drink just like everyone else and relied on royal patronage for the leisure to pursue his studies, but it may occasion surprise to learn that the shape of his number theory should owe something to the particular way in which his eye fell upon a multiplication table. That Galen was influenced by his teachers is not news; but that his commitment to a particular school of philosophy could cause him to see and not see certain things when he was conducting dissections—here is something of interest. The papers in this volume, which were first delivered at a conference in Liverpool in 1996, have it as their common task to show how ancient forms of life influenced the pursuit and acquisition of knowledge on the part of scientists like Euclid and Galen.Heading the collection is a study by Andrew Barker of some idiosyncratic features of Greek harmonic theory. Archytas, Aristotle, and Ptolemy each attempted to characterize the physical basis of the two opposite sound qualities, oxusand barus. As Aristotle himself observed, the terms are metaphors drawn from the tactile realm, and trouble arose because in that realm they are heterogeneous opposites, i.e., the proper opposites of "sharp" and "heavy" are "dull" and "light." Barker uncovers a corresponding uncertainty in the texts about whether these sound qualities should be analyzed as something more like weight or something more like sharpness. Thus, an excessive trust in the descriptive adequacy of ordinary language terms led these thinkers to frustration.Harry Hine's paper on earthquakes and vulcanology deals with ancient knowledge of two phenomena that elicited the attention of scientist and non-scientist alike. Like Barker, Hine draws our attention to a terminological deficiency: although there was a fairly elaborate vocabulary for seismoi, neither Greek nor Latin possessed a generic noun that could properly be translated as [End Page 140] "volcano." This deficiency seems to be correlated with the fact that earthquakes form a regular part of the meteorological curriculum, while volcanoes usually received independent treatment in works such as the Aetna. Particularly intriguing is Hine's suggestion that the opinion of locals, especially sailors, may have been the source of certain scientific theses about volcanoes, e.g., that Aetna's behavior was closely correlated with the weather.The difference between ancient astronomy as practiced and as it was popularly believed to operate is the subject of Alan Bowen's paper. His central question is, when did astronomers first set out to make predictions of eclipses? The surprising answer is that, despite popular beliefs to the contrary, such prediction was never practiced by astronomers in a serious way before Ptolemy. Along with scrutiny of the misunderstanding in Herodotus, Diodorus, and Pliny, the paper offers thorough analysis of the most well-documented "prediction," that of a lunar eclipse that took place the night before the battle of Pydna in 167 B.C.E., which was supposedly foreseen by the Roman (!) general C. Sulpicius Gallus. Bowen casts doubts upon the entire tradition, showing how adherence to an ideology of the well-rounded commander led the sources to inflate his achievement: while some reports have Gallus simply assuaging his troops' fears at the event, others have him explaining its causes or even foretelling it. Bowen's skepticism is well founded, and one must regard these supposed feats of eclipse-prediction as a kind of science fiction, prescient yet false all the same.R. Hanna's subject is the format and function of the parapegma calendar first devised by... (shrink)

In Philolaus’ cosmology, the earth revolves around a central fire along with the other heavenly bodies, including a planet called the counter-earth which orbits below the earth. His theory can account for most astronomical phenomena. A common criticism of his theory since ancient times is that his counter-earth does no work in the system. Yet ancient sources say the planet was supposed to account for some lunar eclipses. A reconstruction of Philolaus’ cosmology shows how lunar eclipses occurring at (...) certain times of day cannot be explained by earth blocking the sun’s light. The counter-earth could explain these eclipses. (shrink)

Examines the ancient cosmic science of the female megalithic astronomers.

We may take tables for granted. However, due to a variety of factors, tables were a rarity in the history of ancient Greek culture, used only limitedly in very special contexts and generally in a non-systematic way, except in astronomy. In this paper I present the main types of tables that can be found in ancient Greek texts: non-ruled columnar lists (accounts and other types of informal tables), ruled columnar lists (mostly astronomical tables), and symmetric tables (mainly (...) Pythagorean displays of numbers). (shrink)

This introduction to physical science combines a rigorous discussion of scientific principles with sufficient historical background and philosophic interpretation to add a new dimension of interest to the accounts given in more conventional textbooks. It brings out the twofold character of physical science as an expanding body of verifiable knowledge and as an organized human activity whose goals and values are major factors in the revolutionary changes sweeping over the world today.Professor Kemble insists that to understand science one must understand (...) not only what the scientists have discovered, but how the discoveries were made, why the growth of scientific knowledge had to begin slowly, and what it has done to our habits of thought. He has written neither a history of science nor an introduction to the philosophy of science but an introduction to scientific concepts and principles that supplies as much of their historical and philosophical context as limits of space permit.The volume takes up in turn the story of the astronomy of ancient Greece, the Copernican revolution, the idea of the expanding sidereal universe, the rise of Newton's classical mechanics with its many astronomical applications, the concept of energy and its relation to heat, to steam engines, and to thermodynamics. The volume ends with an account of the successes and failures of classical kinetic-molecular theory of heat. (shrink)

In Miletus, about 550 B.C., together with our world-picture cosmology was born. This book tells the story. In Part One the reader is introduced in the archaic world-picture of a flat earth with the cupola of the celestial vault onto which the celestial bodies are attached. One of the subjects treated in that context is the riddle of the tilted celestial axis. This part also contains an extensive chapter on archaic astronomical instruments. Part Two shows how Anaximander (610-547 B.C.) blew (...) up this archaic world-picture and replaced it by a new one that is essentially still ours. He taught that the celestial bodies orbit at different distances and that the earth floats unsupported in space. This makes him the founding father of cosmology. Part Three discusses topics that completed the new picture described by Anaximander. Special attention is paid to the confrontation between Anaxagoras and Aristotle on the question whether the earth is flat or spherical, and on the battle between Aristotle and Heraclides Ponticus on the question whether the universe is finite or infinite. (shrink)

: This essay considers the place of mechanisms in ancient theories of science. It might seem therefore to promise a meager discussion, since the importance of mechanisms in contemporary scientific explanation is the product of a revolution in scientific thinking connected with the late Renaissance and its mechanization of nature. Indeed the conception of astronomy as devoted merely to "saving the appearances" without reference to the physics of planetary motion might seem an instance of ancient science vigorously (...) rejecting mechanisms. This fact should suggest to us that there is no simple truth about the role of mechanisms in science that is not relative to a particular strategy or historical moment in the development of a scientific tradition. It should also remind us of a parallel question concerning scientific theory, the question now expressed in the issue of realism and instrumentalism. A discussion of Aristotle's views on scientific explanation in the Posterior Analytics, and particularly his concept of what is prior and better known by nature, shows the ways in which Aristotle resists a crude choice between realism and instrumentalism. Early modern theories of science were committed to realism, and the notion of mechanisms was important to that commitment. Part of the force of mechanisms was that they were thought to reveal the activities by which phenomena are truly brought into being. In this way they often served early philosophers of science by promising a realistic science, able to discover the actual mechanisms by which phenomena were brought about in a universe increasingly viewed as mechanistic. Mechanisms, then, are of critical importance if one is a realist, but of considerably less importance if one is an instrumentalist. Since Aristotle, at least, was neither a realist nor an instrumentalist, his view might be thought to be typically Aristotelian: in some ways they're important, in some not. A glance at some contemporary instances suggests similarly that there can be no general view from a theoretical perspective of the status of mechanisms. Their place is dependent on specific features of specific projects of scientific research and explanation. (shrink)