Good post, lack of memory on the civ level is a real problem. Local solution is to read more of others, and be less "original." Imo, LW could stand to move more in that direction.
The story of etiology of scurvy is a sad one also (and that was much shorter time frames and in recent times).
edit : Graphical models must have been rediscovered 4 or 5 times in the 20th century. Info theory people recently "rediscovered" the g-formula: http://infostructuralist.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/directed-stochastic-kernels-and-causal-interventions/
etc, etc.
In the past I've often waxed lyrical about the benefits of reading other people's work in other disciplines and not re-inventing the wheel. But now I wonder if it's really practical advice. Does it truly take less effort to trawl through mountains of literature than it does to simply think for a few minutes and come up with a solution yourself? The only answer I can come up with is: In some cases yes, in some cases no, but not always.
About LW, it's true that a lot of what people have done here is simply re-invent concepts from philosophy. But in doing so they've given a different perspective to existing ideas, and looked at core issues rather than carrying along millenia of philosophical baggage.
A lot of mathematics, for instance, arose many times independently, and that was how people knew what stuff was important. When a concept gets reinvented many times, by people working on vastly different problems, you know it's something that is important. Calculus, group theory, fourier analysis, etc. all fall under this definition.
This is in the class of "coordination problems", and as we all know those are hard. I think it's worthwhile to spend more energy on this particular one, though.
Related anecdote: one of my programmer friends uses the following algorithm for writing certain kinds of programs: "think of a plausible name for such a program had it already existed, then google for that." This seems to work very often!
The amount of time that understanding of scurvy was lost is short compared to amount of time classical knowledge was lost, but why use that metric? I think a better metric is the speed at which it was lost. That is hard to measure, requiring the reconstruction of history, but Lucio Russo claims that it was quite quick, comparable to the 150 year story of scurvy. Russo suggests that Ptolemy was not the apotheosis of classical astronomy, but someone trying to salvage the wreckage. Russo's hypothesis was the most interesting thing I got out of the post.
On the other hand, discovering something for yourself is arguably one of the best ways to truly understand it, and it does not require you to read & memorize lots of sundry information for the occasional thing that actually ends up being useful.
This reminds me of the researcher's maxim:
A month in the laboratory can often save an hour in the library.
— Frank Westheimer
It is true that some of the ancient ideas still have value today. Or at least they are the foundation for the modern ideas that have value. It is also very likely that some of the "lost works" may contain "facts and ideas that might have value today", beyond the obvious historical interest. It is much less likely that those ideas contain insights never again achieved and preserved. After all, almost every idea has been invented and reinvented time and again. We could indeed "push harder" to recover these lost works, but an evaluation of knowledge gained per dollar spent would likely show that this is an inefficient way to spend money compared to alternative ways of gaining knowledge. This should be easily testable: look through the ancient works discovered in the last 100 years or so and check which lost-and-found insights were new and interesting.
Would we even notice if we read ancient truths that had yet to be rediscovered? Rerum rusticarum libri III was around in the middle ages, wasn't it? Wouldn't scholastics have read it? It's a "holy crap!" moment after you discover the germ theory of disease. Before that it's a bizarre superstition of antiquity.
This passage is a mention of the germ theory of disease. Cochran suggests that there is a lost manuscript actually discussing it, intended for people who don't already know the theory.
I get that, but germ theory during the middle ages wasn't exactly widespread, was it? If I'm not mistaken, the dominant belief was that diseases were caused by foul-smelling odors, not germs.
Imagine reading Rerum rusticarum libri III as a medieval scholar, or maybe event the relevant source. Could we expect a medieval scholar to jump and shout: "Yes! Yes! Of course! Disease is caused by small invisible creatures, not water that smells bad."
That's what Jack is trying to say, I think. With knowledge (and even proof) of germ theory, a find like this is pretty amazing. Without that knowledge or proof, "small-invisible-creatures"-theory has as much evidence as "foul smell"-theory. Maybe even less.
Maybe the lost document contains amazing evidence, but this leaves me wondering, how much evidence could someone in Classical times find to support germ theory.
I get that, but germ theory during the middle ages wasn't exactly widespread, was it? If I'm not mistaken, the dominant belief was that diseases were caused by foul-smelling odors, not germs.
So, this previous post is also relevant. The Roman legions actually understood how disease worked, and used policies to minimize the impact of infectious disease on their armies. This knowledge was lost, and infectious disease was a major killer in medieval and modern armies, to the point where a military which had implemented Roman sanitation likely would have had a major advantage.
So you don't really need a scholar who believes in an ancient work because of evidence- you need someone who tries it out, for whatever reason. In the realm of non-fiction, if it actually works, that will lead to them winning in some way.
It's also worthwhile to consider the impact of new classics on a culture where ideas have to be worded as somehow related to the classics. It's much easier to say "I agree with Democritus over Parmenides" than it is to say "I disagree with Parmenides."
That's a great post, but I think it's going too far to say that the Romans understood disease. Maybe they did, but I don't think there's any evidence that they consciously designed their camps for disease reasons. Note that Cochran doesn't claim that they understood. Also, he mentions the alternate hypothesis that there was less disease back then. It ought to be clear from the historical record if Rome won by avoiding disease that struck enemy armies. I don't know the history, but Cochran implies that Rome didn't have such an edge. Did the enemies have the same sanitation? or did it not make much difference?
I think it's worth pointing out that early moderns didn't seem to notice that disease in army camps was a big deal. So the observed failure to copy the Romans probably would not have been mitigated if they'd had an ancient text asserting that the method protected from disease. (Though maybe the assertion that disease mattered in war would have been helpful.) Yes, someone blindly copying Roman camps would have had an advantage, but an advantage not understood propagates slowly.
I think it's going too far to say that the Romans understood disease
What does "understood disease" mean?
If the Romans knew that setting up an army camp one way leads to half the soldiers unable to step away from the latrines and setting up the camp another way leads to most everyone being fine -- does that imply understanding disease?
And, by the way, I wonder if a big factor in comparing Roman to medieval European armies would be the prevailing military strategy. In Roman times warfare was mostly mobile -- armies marched, then fought. In medieval times a lot more focus was on sieges where an army stays in one place for a long time. Obviously a marching army is less vulnerable to disease than an army that camps in a single place for months.
Sure, but I think it is going too far even to say that the Romans thought that latrines reduced disease. Do you have ancient sources suggesting otherwise?
Yes, the more mobile the Romans are the less the design of their camps matters. And yet, they got it right and the medievals who needed it got it wrong.
There's a bit of a discussion in the comments here.
That armies suffered from and could be wiped out by disease outbreaks was well-known in ancient times. And if you think that the design of Roman camps' sanitation was not caused by the desire to avoid sickness, how do you think it arose?
But I agree that empirical advice of the "Don't do X or bad things will happen" kind could come purely from repeated experience without any idea of why this is so.
I can think of lots of alternate hypotheses for why Romans had good camp hygiene.
(1) Russo's answer to everything is that they copied all their technology from the Hellenistic Greeks without copying their understanding (eg, aqueducts). History or archaeology probably records who had these camps first. (2) Perhaps urban disease evolved cities to have good hygiene without understanding and the Romans copied the hygiene to the camps fairly arbitrarily. (3) Or maybe it copied some other urban practice that had non-disease reasons. Or pure superstition. This isn't a detailed hypothesis, but I don't think that's a good reason to reject it.
I can think of lots of alternate hypotheses
I am sure you can, but before we get to proposing that it was the gurgling in Russel's teapot that led the Romans to consider the sanitation of their camps, maybe a bit of a consultation with William of Occam is in order?
That's a great post, but I think it's going too far to say that the Romans understood disease.
Sure, I agree that I oversold it, and should have worded it more carefully. But, I'll point out that "understand disease" is not a single threshold. One could contest the claim that we understand disease. The following claims seem to be individually more likely than not: some educated Romans knew that sanitation and disease were linked, designed sanitation around their knowledge of disease, and that epidemic diseases were caused by invisible agents that were physically transmitted. It seems much more likely than not that Roman knowledge of disease- both theoretical and practical- surpassed medieval knowledge of disease for the majority of the medieval period.
I think it's worth pointing out that early moderns didn't seem to notice that disease in army camps was a big deal.
Really? I get the impression that they knew disease inside a city could end the siege in the attacker's favor, and disease outside a city could end the siege in the defender's favor. I think they thought it was an unavoidable fact of life, though, which might cash out as 'not a big deal.' (For example, I get the impression that the British Navy lost a ton of men to scurvy, but didn't embark on many explicit attempts to figure out and prevent scurvy because it wasn't obvious to them that such a thing was possible / they didn't know where to start.)
Sorry I wasn't clear, as you can tell from the other thread with Lumifer, but I really do mean to object to the claim that Roman knowledge contributed to the design of the camps.
Yes, early moderns did notice that epidemics were important in sieges, but they didn't seem to notice that disease mattered at other times.
I really do mean to object to the claim that Roman knowledge contributed to the design of the camps.
Take a look at De Architectura:
- For fortified towns the following general principles are to be observed. First comes the choice of a very healthy site. Such a site will be high, neither misty nor frosty, and in a climate neither hot nor cold, but temperate; further, without marshes in the neighbourhood. For when the morning breezes blow toward the town at sunrise, if they bring with them mists from marshes and, mingled with the mist, the poisonous breath of the creatures of the marshes to be wafted into the bodies of the inhabitants, they will make the site unhealthy. Again, if the town is on the coast with a southern or western exposure, it will not be healthy, because in summer the southern sky grows hot at sunrise and is fiery at noon, while a western exposure grows warm after sunrise, is hot at noon, and at evening all aglow.
From Book VIII:
CHAPTER IV
TESTS OF GOOD WATER
Springs should be tested and proved in advance in the following ways. If they run free and open, inspect and observe the physique of the people who dwell in the vicinity before beginning to conduct the water, and if their frames are strong, their complexions fresh, legs sound, and eyes clear, the springs deserve complete approval. If it is a spring just dug out, its water is excellent if it can be sprinkled into a Corinthian vase or into any other sort made of good bronze without leaving a spot on it. Again, if such water is boiled in a bronze cauldron, afterwards left for a time, and then poured off without sand or mud being found at the bottom of the cauldron, that water also will have proved its excellence.
And if green vegetables cook quickly when put into a vessel of such water and set over a fire, it will be a proof that the water is good and wholesome. Likewise if the water in the spring is itself limpid and clear, if there is no growth of moss or reeds where it spreads and flows, and if its bed is not polluted by filth of any sort but has a clean appearance, these signs indicate that the water is light and wholesome in the highest degree.
All of the other surviving scraps I can find suggest they had a decent idea what they were talking about, and that they took health seriously. I don't know of a manual on camp latrine placement, or sewer design, or so on, or any works on germ theories directly. But I'm operating from the presumption that survival is the exception, not the norm. (In particular, I'm not a Roman scholar. There very well might be a manual on camp latrine placement that's survived to the modern day, which I simply haven't heard of. I only knew to look in Vitruvius because he's famous enough that I've heard of him.)
It seems to me that if A) their knowledge of health and disease contributed to their design of cities and camps, it should be more likely to see B) health and disease mentioned prominently in design manuals. We do see B, and so that makes me more confident in A.
It seems like a confirmation of "their knowledge contributed to the design of the camps," though it's not a confirmation that their knowledge was 'correct' or that their knowledge was the primary historical cause of that particular design.
It also affirms that this isn't just Varro being a hypochondriac, and is evidence for a general trend of Roman design taking health and disease into account in ways that were actually effective.
Here is what Lucio Russo (8.2) says about Varro:
What was Rome’s attitude toward science? To give an idea of the level of Roman interest in the scientific method, it may suffice to mention that, as far as is known, no one even attempted to translate Euclid's Elements into Latin until the sixth century A.D. The first complete translation seems to have been Adelard's: the year was around 1120 and Adelard was an Englishman (from Bath) translating from the Arabic.
When Varro lists in his agricultural manual earlier treatises on the subject, he says that Theophrastus' writings are not so much for people who care to cultivate land but for those who want philosophical learning. Why were the Greek scientist's books, which contained besides much else principles on which viticulture was reformed throughout the Hellenistic world, labeled as philosophical texts with no practical utility? Evidently because Theophrastus talks of theories. Varro, probably the most erudite of Romans, is turned off by such things, which he does not understand. He classes their content with the only "theory" whose existence he’s aware of: philosophy.
Varro represents a prescientific culture, to which science was utterly alien. By contrast, later Roman writers like Pliny or Seneca are fascinated by Hellenistic scientific works: they cannot follow the logic of the argu- ments, but nonetheless admire their conclusions, precisely because they appear unexpected and marvelous. These authors try to emulate their models while eliminating the logical connecting threads or replacing them with ones which, though arbitrary, are easier to visualize and so lead faster to the desired result, the wonderment of the reader. This contact with the results of a science whose methodology remains impenetrable then has the glaring effect of causing faith in common sense — a quality that earlier writers like Varro did not lack — to be jettisoned.
9.3:
That theoretical knowledge was applied to agriculture is indicated by the flourishing of treatises on the subject. Varro writes that in Greek there were fifty such works, and he names forty-nine of them. Not a single one has been preserved, nor do we have reliable quotes from them. It is indisputable that they were the ultimate origin of all Roman knowledge about the subject, but there is very little hope of reconstructing any sig- nificant fraction of their content based on the writings of learned Romans. Indeed, it seems that the chief source used by Varro and other Roman writers on agriculture was Diophanes of Bithynia, who summarized the translation made by Cassius Dionysius of the large handbook written by the Carthaginian Mago, itself a compilation of various Hellenistic treatises on agronomy.
I don't like it when he uses words like "indisputable," but the following page contains an example in a footnote:
Varro says that the first Romans who tried breeding these species learned about the practice in the books by Mago and Cassius Dionysius (De re rustica, III, ii §§13–14). In the same context he mentions the introduction of fish-farming.
Related: Son of Low Hanging Fruit, Low Hanging Poop
A post by Gregory Cochran's and Henry Harpending's blog West Hunter.