|
I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks and not a lot of primary source references guys...
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 23:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Roman field camps had a wall and a ditch around them, and they did indeed build one every night according to the sources. The remains of some have been found. Presumably they brought the stakes for the walls with them and it was all a prefab structure. The ditch would be about six feet deep and surround the entire camp outside the wall, it's just another barrier for attackers.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks and not a lot of primary source references guys... Against method and references therein for one example
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 23:52
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm seeing a lot of personal attacks and not a lot of primary source references guys... I'm not seeing a lot of primary sources from you, either. Or did you think "I've heard Galileo saying something" was a primary source reference?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 23:55
|
|
|
Why the attitude? Yes, I did read Galileo, it was required reading for a science education program. But to be honest, I'm really not enjoying being called a credulous idiot. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 00:01 on May 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2020 23:58
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Why the attitude? Yes, I did read Galileo, it was required reading for a science education program. it's a lot like kramering into the thread and saying 'well jefferson davis said it was about States Rights once in a letter so that wraps up the case'
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:04
|
|
|
Wow so Galileo is like Jefferson Davis now. So where is this image of Galileo as a lying, egotistical, moral reprobate coming from?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wow so Galileo is like Jefferson Davis now. in terms of being the subject of oft-repeated pop history myths, yes columbus didn't discover the earth was round, either
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:06
|
|
|
Still seeing zero actual information and a lot of bile.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:10
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Still seeing zero actual information and a lot of bile. Just gonna ignore that I gave you a reference?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:14
|
|
|
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method This?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:16
|
|
|
yes
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:17
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Still seeing zero actual information and a lot of bile.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:19
|
|
|
So to go back to what I originally said about Herodotus, and why ideas about erosion and deposition over tens of thousands of years seemed like settled fact to him, why did that disappear from settled fact when presumably Herodotus was still required reading? The silting up of estuaries was known, but in the early 19th century the building up of new land from the ocean was still contested by flood narrative theories. As far as I can tell some people are saying young-earth creationism didn't exist until the 19th century, some people are saying that's not true. And as far as astronomy, what's the counter-narrative here? Actually, the church didn't interfere in the debate and nobody was worried about it? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/paul-feyerabend-against-method.lt.pdf This is a 1975 philosophy of science book. Would you do us the courtesy of summarizing how it shows that "Galileo had a giant ego and was a lying idiot in many ways. With the evidence available at the time geocentrism was a very sensible position to take." Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 00:45 on May 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:35
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So to go back to what I originally said about Herodotus, and why ideas about erosion and deposition over tens of thousands of years seemed like settled fact to him, why did that disappear from settled fact when presumably Herodotus was still required reading? The silting up of estuaries was known, but in the early 19th century the building up of new land from the ocean was still contested by flood narrative theories. Prior to that, a lot of people who didn't have much cause to consider the matter would have probably just accepted the predominant religious narrative in the area. The exact age of the Earth is not a major impact on most activities of daily life. So people may well have believed "Yeah, the Earth was created by God a few thousand years ago, that sounds right" but it wasn't the formal pattern of "young-earth creationism." As for Galileo the counternarrative is mostly "it wasn't a clear-cut case where Strong, Wise Galileo spit in the eye of the bad old Church of Rome." It was a complex chain of events.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:43
|
|
|
Somebody posted a wonderful link a year or so back that describes the whole story in detail, but essentially there was an elaborate debate, involving politics, math, evidence both for and against geocentrism including issues with the Coriolus effect, and multiple competing theories on how the universe worked. Key take home points were that Galileo was wrong about a great many things (he propounded circular orbits rather than ellipses, among others) and the church was spending a great deal of time not taking a stand for a long time to avoid picking the wrong horse. This more or less stopped when Galileo continued picking fights with important clerics, who eventually hauled him up on charges as a firm way of asking him to stop talking poo poo until the debate was done, and that’s how he got into trouble. I’ve spent the last half hour trying to track down the link, though, and failed miserably. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
I wonder if you could tell me how I construe young-earth creationism.
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 00:49 on May 3, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Did they do this in fixed locations in friendly territory? They had permanent forts in many locations. I'm assuming you mean like if you were redeploying a legion from Italy to Gaul in 200 AD. I believe they did, but our sources are dicey to answer questions that specific. My assumption is that since the Roman army understood the value of training and drill, they would have built forts every night no matter where they were and called it a training exercise if they were somewhere where they had no real chance of being attacked. But it also would've been up to the general, it's easy for me to believe some would have had more lax discipline when there wasn't a threat of attack during the night. They probably set the camp up in the same layout, but skipping the walls is possible. And it's possible they had known camping locations along marching routes that were used repeatedly, that's another thing I don't know of any source material about.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:49
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So to go back to what I originally said about Herodotus, and why ideas about erosion and deposition over tens of thousands of years seemed like settled fact to him, why did that disappear from settled fact when presumably Herodotus was still required reading? The silting up of estuaries was known, but in the early 19th century the building up of new land from the ocean was still contested by flood narrative theories. A lot depends on what you mean by “young earth creationism.” Most people would have taken for granted that the Earth was only a few millennia old, but the primary alternative position wouldn’t have been a billions-of-years-old Earth, but a literally infinitely old and unchanging Earth. They would probably have been confused if you described them as believing in a young Earth, because they would have considered thousands of years a pretty long time!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Wasn't the big issue that, until Kepler, the Copernican model wasn't accurate enough to be used for predicting things? Like people knew the Ptolemaic model wasn't necessarily an accurate physical model, but despite being janky, it could actually be used to calculate the stuff astronomers needed to calculate? I think I'm remembering Simon Singh's Big Bang, but a) I'm no astrophysicist and b)have no idea of the accuracy of Singh's narrative.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:52
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Wasn't the big issue that, until Kepler, the Copernican model wasn't accurate enough to be used for predicting things? The initial value of the Copernican model wasn't accuracy, but simplicity. The Ptolemaic model had hundreds of epicycles by that point and was a mess to try to calculate anything based on it. Putting the Sun at the center gave them the same numbers (specifically, the correct date for Easter) with far less hassle. It did take Kepler's elliptical orbits to make heliocentrism actually superior.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Found the first article in the series I was mentioning here: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 01:20
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:I notice a lot of people tend to kind of passively fail the Theory Of Mind, in that they assume that everyone really does deep down believe the same thing that they do, and if people seem to be on the other side of an issue, that's just lying out to promote [self interested goal] rather than legitimately having different beliefs.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Are you guys really gonna "well actually" the Galileo affair? i'm talking about the middle ages. you're talking about the early modern period. they're not the same. for a number of historical reasons the galileo thing happend in baasically the worst century it could have for him.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:12
|
|
|
Tunicate posted:Like seriously Kepler's model was already well liked at that point, but Galileo hated it because (among other things) Galileo believed that the idea that the moon could somehow control the tides was occult nonsense, and HE had a perfectly good model of the tides sloshing around, which accurately gives them a 24 hour cycle *is told by local sailors that No, the tides are on a 12 hour cycle* which was a PERFECTLY good model of a 24 hour cycle and I trust my theory more than some dumbass sailors. if you like that, descartes had a wacky theory of gravity that involved like...ether vortices or something, it ruled
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:I'm really not enjoying being called a credulous idiot.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:15
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Actually, the church didn't interfere in the debate and nobody was worried about it?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:So to go back to what I originally said about Herodotus, and why ideas about erosion and deposition over tens of thousands of years seemed like settled fact to him, why did that disappear from settled fact when presumably Herodotus was still required reading? The silting up of estuaries was known, but in the early 19th century the building up of new land from the ocean was still contested by flood narrative theories. Aside from the fact that people have already said that the flood narrative theories were not necessarily dominant, I think the fact of the matter is that most "settled fact" to one ancient greek scholar was not taken as settled fact by the rest of Europe a thousand years after he was gone. Even when the classics were rediscovered and built up a whole new following, it's not like people accepted them just on faith. Plenty of scholarship was done confirming or debunking the classics, and by the 19th century, Herodotus was basically irrelevant to non-historical science. Also it's perfectly possible for bizarre weird theories to just pop up and gain a lot of traction out of nowhere, in opposition to objective reality or classical established scholarship. It just happens sometimes. The same way that new ideas can raise up a following and turn out to be right, new ideas can raise a following and turn out to be wrong, and it's only dedication to rigor in scholarship that can keep things on course of one rather than the other.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:23
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Roman field camps had a wall and a ditch around them, and they did indeed build one every night according to the sources. The remains of some have been found. Presumably they brought the stakes for the walls with them and it was all a prefab structure. The ditch would be about six feet deep and surround the entire camp outside the wall, it's just another barrier for attackers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castra. We have the field manual for it! . quote:A castrum was designed to house and protect the soldiers, their equipment and supplies when they were not fighting or marching. Also, they used 10 foot poles to build it. Turns out the old D&D rule of carrying a 10 foot pole is perfectly acceptable.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:39
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:you really are yeah well who's got the humanities PhD
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 02:44
|
|
|
HEY GUNS posted:if you like that, descartes had a wacky theory of gravity that involved like...ether vortices or something, it ruled Descartes also had some ideas about the pineal gland: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pineal-gland/ Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy posted:Unfortunately, however, some of Descartes’ basic anatomical and physiological assumptions were totally mistaken, not only by our standards, but also in light of what was already known in his time. It is important to keep this in mind, for otherwise his account cannot be understood. First, Descartes thought that the pineal gland is suspended in the middle of the ventricles. But it is not, as Galen had already pointed out (see above). Secondly, Descartes thought that the pineal gland is full of animal spirits, brought to it by many small arteries which surround it. But as Galen had already pointed out, the gland is surrounded by veins rather than arteries. Third, Descartes described these animal spirits as “a very fine wind, or rather a very lively and pure flame” (AT XI:129, CSM I:100) and as “a certain very fine air or wind” (AT XI:331, CSM I:330). He thought that they inflate the ventricles just like the sails of a ship are inflated by the wind. But as we have mentioned, a century earlier Massa had already discovered that the ventricles are filled with liquid rather than an air-like substance.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 03:28
|
|
|
Comstar posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castra. We have the field manual for it! . also before starting military campaigns, the Romans would sometimes build up a series of forts along their supply route in advance. Crassus was criticized for doing this before his expedition against the Parthians, as after his disaster it was argued he had sacrificed the initiative and allowed the Persians to meet him in battle. However it's not obviously a mistake-- from one perspective its a very reasonable preparation and precaution.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 03:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The initial value of the Copernican model wasn't accuracy, but simplicity. The Ptolemaic model had hundreds of epicycles by that point and was a mess to try to calculate anything based on it. Putting the Sun at the center gave them the same numbers (specifically, the correct date for Easter) with far less hassle. Thanks. I hadn't realised it made Easter easier to calculate!
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 05:09
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Thanks. I hadn't realised it made Easter easier to calculate! That's actually what Copernicus was tasked with. The Ptolemaic system was getting out of hand and the Pope wanted an easier way to calculate Easter. Copernicus was a known whiz so the Pope gave the assignment to him. The Pope was delighted with the result, by the way. He considered the geocentric model to be nothing more than a mathematical tool or trick for calculating. At the time, it was quite a stretch to believe that the Earth was actually whizzing around the Sun like that. It seemed absurd. However, the seed was planted and lots of people started thinking, "what if it really did?" and the rest is history. Literally.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 05:14
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:The initial value of the Copernican model wasn't accuracy, but simplicity. The Ptolemaic model had hundreds of epicycles by that point and was a mess to try to calculate anything based on it. Putting the Sun at the center gave them the same numbers (specifically, the correct date for Easter) with far less hassle. I'm pretty sure that it's the other way around. Copernicus's models had more epicycles than Ptolemy's, because he replaced Ptolemy's equants with multiple epicycles (because he thought the equant was anti-Aristotelian because it involved moving orbits).In terms of models, I don't know that either was much simpler than the other. There was an old theory that says the Ptolemaic model required adding multiple epicycles by that point, but we found records of medieval Ptolmaic tables, and the number of epicycles don't change much from the 13th century to the 16th.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 05:27
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Roman field camps had a wall and a ditch around them, and they did indeed build one every night according to the sources. The remains of some have been found. Presumably they brought the stakes for the walls with them and it was all a prefab structure. The ditch would be about six feet deep and surround the entire camp outside the wall, it's just another barrier for attackers. Cool, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 05:55
|
|
|
And by the time you get to the Caesarian and Liberators' Civil Wars and you have Roman troops on both sides, when they do meet in battle they spend most of their time building field fortifications trying to force their opponent into a compromised position. That poo poo was their bread and butter.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 07:15
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Re: Theory of the Mind got mentioned so it's worth noting that a lot of people (and a lot of pop science) basically make the "medieval" (i.e. also the Early Modern) Catholic Church a standin for the current-day American religious right.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 10:00
|
|
|
Elissimpark posted:Thanks. I hadn't realised it made Easter easier to calculate! you can spell out rude words in epicycles if you really try though. now there's computers for it, when i was in school we had to do our epicycles by hand
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Kemper Boyd posted:Re: Theory of the Mind got mentioned so it's worth noting that a lot of people (and a lot of pop science) basically make the "medieval" (i.e. also the Early Modern) Catholic Church a standin for the current-day American religious right.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2020 23:09
|
|