Douglas_Knight comments on Recovery Manual for Civilization - Less Wrong

6 Post author: RyanCarey 31 October 2014 09:36AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (48)

Comments (48)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 02 November 2014 12:55:01AM *  1 point [-]

Pliny, 2 112 (or 2 109)

Dionysodorus is certainly less worthy of confidence; but I cannot omit this most remarkable instance of Grecian vanity. He was a native of Melos, and was celebrated for his knowledge of geometry; he died of old age in his native country. His female relations, who inherited his property, attended his funeral, and when they had for several successive days performed the usual rites, they are said to have found in his tomb an epistle written in his own name to those left above; it stated that he had descended from his tomb to the lowest part of the earth, and that it was a distance of 42,000 stadia. There were not wanting certain geometricians, who interpreted this epistle as if it had been sent from the middle of the globe, the point which is at the greatest distance from the surface, and which must necessarily be the centre of the sphere. Hence the estimate has been made that it is 252,000 stadia in circumference.

Comment author: Azathoth123 04 November 2014 01:59:27AM 0 points [-]

In fairness to the Romans, I could probably find popular "science" books today with a similar level of stupidity.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 04 November 2014 02:28:21AM 2 points [-]

Right, Pliny and Seneca are pop science. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's not surprising that it survived. The problem is that there isn't any Roman science. It's not just that none survives, but no names are known, while lots of names of Hellenistic scientists are known without text. Maybe the scientists and engineers wrote in Greek. Galen lived in Rome and wrote in Greek, but he was Greek. Maybe the Romans didn't want to learn science and engineering, subjects for slaves.

A better example is the introduction to Varro's book on farming. This is not a pop science book, but a practical manual. He complains that his Greek sources are full of "philosophy." Lucio Russo suggests that they are full of abstract arguments that Varro cannot follow. But Varro is our only access to these authors, so we cannot be sure. In any event, these are all small N arguments.

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2014 02:59:20AM 0 points [-]

I don't know much about Pliny, but Pliny's treatment of Eratosthenes, which just precedes the section you quoted, indicates Pliny does understand the math. Pliny writes of it that:

it is supported by such subtle arguments that we cannot refuse our assent

Doesn't that indicate that Pliny had read and followed Eratosthenes' argument?

Pliny's later digression on a story about a letter seems irrelevant to this issue. The story doesn't look to be a substitution for a mathematical case; it looks like it's supposed to be only an anecdote.

Comment author: Douglas_Knight 02 November 2014 03:38:42AM 1 point [-]

Yes, Pliny asserts that he followed Eratosthenes's argument. I don't believe him.

I do believe that he has read an account of the argument, traces of which are in 2.75 (and 76 mentions Eratosthenes by name).

Comment author: fortyeridania 02 November 2014 04:56:19AM 0 points [-]

I don't believe him.

Fair enough.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit