Yasmin, who has studied "the classics," i.e., Imperial science, knows that:
"'...any star is something like 98 per cent hydrogen and helium.'" (p. 532)
This is because stars have condensed from gas composed of these simplest of elements.
The first Greek philosopher, Thales, said, "All is water." A molecule of water is two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen so Thales was nearly right. Natural philosophers wanted to identify the most basic material substance from which others were formed. Thales' successor, Anaximander, said that the primal substance is transformed into familiar substances, including water, which are transformed into each other. Anaximander was right. Natural philosophers have become empirical scientists who have worked out the details.
7 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, but the Greek philosophers never went on from such basic principles to working out a true, empirically practical science. That had to wait for the rise of Christianity and developing of the right turns of mind in the Middle Ages. As discussed by Anderson in IS THERE LIFE ON OTHER WORLDS? and "Delenda Est."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The combination of rational thought (Scholastic philosophy) with practical technology (Roman aqueducts etc) generated empirical science.
Paul.
Medieval philosophy was based on either Plato (Augustine) or Aristotle (Aquinas).
Kaor, Paul!
I agree, but I would also include Medieval era inventions and advances in technology, such as the mechanical clock.
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul!
In the high Middle Ages Aristotle was THE Philosopher.
Ad astra! Sean
NB: one reason so many Roman remains 'remain', is that Romans chronically overbuilt things.
Partly this is for legal reasons; Roman liability law made builders cautious.
But mostly it was because Romans were empiricists without much theory (and with rather unsophisticated mathematics).
So "when in doubt, add more concrete/build the walls thicker" was their moto.
You can see this in Roman roads, in comparison to say a macadamized road in England in 1820.
Roman roads are built like a section of fortress wall laid on its side. They last very well.
But they were enormously expensive in time, labor and money to -build-, and they still required fairly frequent maintenance to remain passable to wheeled vehicles.
A macadamized road is as fragile as a snowflake by comparison; it's basically carefully shaped dirt, with a thin covering of carefully graded crushed rock pounded on top.
It, too requires maintenance... but it's much, much cheaper than a Roman-style road to make, and provides a rolling surface that's just as good in some ways and better in others.
It's much easier on the hooves of horses and oxen, for example (the prime movers in both 100 CE and 1820 CE).
The reason it's better is that McAdam did not use "brute force and massive ignorance" engineering; he thought it through from first principles.
"What does a road require", in other words, rather than throwing labor and stone and concrete at the problem.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
IOW, McAdam thought like a child of the Middle Ages, when that kind of thinking from first principles and a truly scientific engineering were being worked out.
Still, I have to admire many of the surviving examples we have of Roman engineering and architecture.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment