 |
|---|
Mountain Man's Global News Archive
The Ancient Elements of Nature
|
|---|
The Ancient Elements of Nature |
|---|
Date: Thu May 07 12:23:23 1998
From: meron@cars3.uchicago.edu
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Question: AEON --------> "Proto-Science"?
Mountain Man writes:
A question for the opinionated ....
Is the ancient classification of nature into the
"elements of nature" (ie: fire, water, air and earth)
(AEON) considered to be any form of 'proto-science'?
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote:
Sure - the capacity for reducing a complex environment into
a smaller set of fundamental considerations has its benefits
in the area of "quickness" of thinking.
That the specific explanation used didn't get anywhere, isn't that
important. The pattern of thinking, yes, this is important.
Mountain Man writes:
The specific explanation (ie: some kind of ancient reductionism
to "elements" of earth, water, air and fire) would appear to have
no successors, and in that, would seem a remnant explanation,
discarded, as it were, along the scientific/reductionist highway.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
I wouldn't quite say so. We shouldn't get to attached to words, as
words change their meanings over time. Same as our atoms are not an
equivalent of the "atoms" of Democritos, our elements are not the
equivalent of the Greek elements. I would say that their elements
correspond closely to our "states of matter" and as such they are in
use till today. Only, "states of matter" is a classificatory scheme,
not an explanatory one.
Mountain Man writes:
However, I think there is something to be considered here which
goes a little deeper than the intellectual consideration of the
explanation. I'd put forard a suggestion and see your response:
This "redundant" world_view was actually embraced - independently
it would seem - by most, if not all, of the scattered tribes of
man right back into pre-history. And it would appear that, aided
by the influence of Aristotle et al, this world_view was then
perpetuated as part of the "classical" world. In fact, as you
would be no doubt aware, the displacement of this ancient world_view
did not occur until the gradual rise of atomic chemistry and the
analytical knowledge of the "states of matter" were published and
communicated to the world.
Thus, I would suggest that the remnant value in this world view
may be gleaned by asking the question "Why did this world_view
last so long? Why was it as it was and not different?
Mati summarises:
Solid, liquid, gas, plasma.
They are the same everywhere.
Mountain Man writes:
What benefits did it bring to its subscribers,
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
The warm feeling of "understanding the world.
Mountain Man writes:
and what were its limitations?"
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
Just that it didn't really contribute to understanding. Or rather to
what science (and mankind in general) care about the most, predictive
power. Classifications are very nice as a first step but eventually
we would like to be able to predict what may happen under given
circumstances, not just generate post-mortems.
....
Mountain Man writes:
Well, I think that our agreement on the first point ensures that
there is enough common ground inherent in the reductionist ideas
and patterns of ideas, which prompted the appearance of this
ancient world_view in the very first place, and its development
and promulgation down through the long ages of time.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
Agreed.
Mountain Man writes:
So I guess it just boils down to some form of common assessment
of the "remnant value" of this old-world paradigm.
meron@cars3.uchicago.edu writes:
As I see it, it was an early step in a long and ongoing journey and it
wasn't a wasted step. Patterns of thought are important even if
specific thoughts turn out to be dead ends.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
Usenet Index |
FAQ: Ancient Elements of Nature |
Mountain Man Graphics |
E-Mail
