Norse/Roman Philosophy?

[DayRaven]

Scientific thought didn't originate or exist in Greek culture.

I'm not sure where else it arose in ancient cultures (perhaps it did but I'm not aware of it). As for not existing in Greek culture: the history of science tells against your claim. Will you expand on why you think it did not?

As for the rest of your treatment

The theory was stated by the German classical philologist Bruno Snell (who died in 1986). As it is you can find his research in a collection of essays under the title of the Discovery of the Mind, 1982 (the specific essay you want is The origin of scientific thought). I'm no expert on such matters but given you disagree with the late professor Snell I would be interested to know your reasons why.

 

[Midnight Rain]

1) The central component lacking from Greek philosophy (including natural philosophy) that the sciences require is empiricism and a worldview in which empirical inquiry makes sense. This was absent from Greek philosophy.

The scientific method did have an impressive predecessor in the Socratic method. The Socratic method and Aristotelian empiricism were incredibly important developmental steps to what would eventually become the modern scientific method.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm not sure where else it arose in ancient cultures (perhaps it did but I'm not aware of it). As for not existing in Greek culture: the history of science tells against your claim. Will you expand on why you think it did not?[

I have done so many times. Yet I would again to answer your question, but as I have in part addressed this question here already I'd ask you shorten our time spent by reading it:
Galileo and the origin of science

The theory was stated by the German classical philologist Bruno Snell (who died in 1986).

You are off by about a century or more. Look into Jones, Schlegel, Bopp, Grimm,. Schleicher, Grassmann, Brugmann,Saussure, etc.

As it is you can find his research in a collection of essays under the title of the Discovery of the Mind, 1982 (the specific essay you want is The origin of scientific thought). I'm no expert on such matters but given you disagree with the late professor Snell I would be interested to know your reasons why.

I would be more than happy to. But I have detailed over and over and over and over again my research and thoughts and evaluations on sources here and to those like Pinker and Fodor and Chomsky (and would have Hauser), so I would ask that you point to specific elements of the works you've read that I might situate them in the context of the cognitive sciences. Thank you.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The scientific method.

...is a fantasy taught to pre-college and most undergrads who don't actually conduct studies or perform scientific research. There is no "the scientific method" and every practicing scientists is more than well aware of this. However, so pervasive is this notion of a unified approach within the sciences that popular sources, from magazines to Fox News, have managed to manipulate the fundamentals of the sciences to their wishes.

 

[Midnight Rain]

...is a fantasy taught to pre-college and most undergrads who don't actually conduct studies or perform scientific research. There is no "the scientific method" and every practicing scientists is more than well aware of this. However, so pervasive is this notion of a unified approach within the sciences that popular sources, from magazines to Fox News, have managed to manipulate the fundamentals of the sciences to their wishes.

While being no form of scientist myself I am still aware of this. Perhaps I should have called it the scientific approach or process.

 

[DayRaven]

I have done so many times.

Informative, thanks, I look forward to reading it as time allows.

Would you not agree, though, that (as you state about the "scientific method") there have been other views of science than the western understanding?

I would ask that you point to specific elements of the works you've read

I can give you a quick quote from Snell but I'm sure you would appreciate it is time consuming to write chunks out from the article:

"The general concept, we may conclude, absorbs characteristic features of all three types of noun-proper, concrete, and abstract; we may go so far as to say that rational thought, or logic, is the product of a combination of all three......"
p.233

This is the book:
The Discovery of the Mind in Greek Philosophy and Literature: Amazon.co.uk: Bruno Snell: 9780486242644: Books

Do you know these two works?

The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West: Amazon.co.uk: Toby E. Huff: Books

Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era: A Sourcebook Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World: Amazon.co.uk: Georgia L. Irby-Massie, Paul T. Keyser: Books

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Would you not agree, though, that (as you state about the "scientific method") there have been other views of science than the western understanding?

No. I wouldn't. At least not until after the Western turn from natural philosophy (early modern science) into the sciences.

I can give you a quick quote from Snell but I'm sure you would appreciate it is time consuming to write chunks out from the article

:

I wrote a paper on Snell as an undergrad. I've attached it.

This is the book:
The Discovery of the Mind in Greek Philosophy and Literature: Amazon.co.uk: Bruno Snell: 9780486242644: Books

I read the German original.

The Rise of Early Modern Science: Islam, China and the West: Amazon.co.uk: Toby E. Huff: Books

Greek Science of the Hellenistic Era: A Sourcebook Routledge Sourcebooks for the Ancient World: Amazon.co.uk: Georgia L. Irby-Massie, Paul T. Keyser: Books

Yes. There are others that could be added from Richard Carrier's dissertation to a paper in the volume that prompted my thread I linked to. The problem is the distinction between technological or mathematical advancement and a systematic framework (with the requisite worldview) within which the processes and properties of the physical world are investigated using logic end empirical methods to construct theoretical frameworks that make up the sciences. I wrote some fairly short posts about this:

Evolution is just a theory

Science and the Scientific Method

Simply put, while the Greeks came as close to science as any (their formulation of logical arguments, deduction, etc., are the means by which empirical results can be meaningful, and thus the Greeks had the necessary framework for a successful scientific endeavor but were hampered by the lack of any desire to incorporate their logical framework into empirical inquiry; the Chinese were somewhat the opposite: the best engineers but lacking a logical framework and a desire to understand).

What sources like your do is mistake components of the sciences for the scientific endeavor itself. There is no doubt that non-Western cultures achieved mathematical and technological advancements well before any Western culture did (the Chinese had a fundamental component of linear algebra well before any Western mathematician worked on systems of equations, and of course the word algebra itself shows how indebted the West is to Arabic mathematics). This is not "science", though. Science is systematic and must combine both empirical inquiry and a logical framework.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Science is a branch of philosophy. The Greeks had scientific thought, they just did not yet seperate science from philosophy. The scientific method is a philosophical approach.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

Science is a branch of philosophy. The Greeks had scientific thought, they just did not yet seperate science from philosophy. The scientific method is a philosophical approach.

There is no scientific method. This is so basic that the AAAS and national education groups, committees, etc., have repeatedly tried to address the problems inherent in presenting The Scientific Method.

Also, science isn't a branch of philosophy. Hence the field "philosophy of science". The Greeks developed a logical system but lacked not only the necessary empirical aspects of the sciences, but also the belief that there was any good reason to think such a thing either necessary or meaningful. Aristotle could have proved his mechanics wrong with a simple experiment. He reasoned into existence, and never tested it because the idea of developing theories and hypotheses, testing them and incorporating the results into theories or theoretical frameworks, was utterly absent and did not appear until the natural philosophers like Newton shifted into scientists.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

Natural philosophy is science mate.
Newton was a scientist whether he called himself a natural philosopher or a scientist makes no difference.

And yes, there is a scientific method - it is a philosophical approach in which hypothesis are tested empirically.

Aristotle could indeed test his hypothesis, he spent much of his life doing so.

 

[Bunyip]

Legion

You seem to be arguing for a pretty fine semantic distinction here - how is it relevant to the OP whether science is a philosophical approach or not in your view?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Legion

You seem to be arguing for a pretty fine semantic distinction here

It's so incredibly fundamental that trying to correct views like yours has been a central issue for college and pre-college curricula.

 

[Bunyip]

It's so incredibly fundamental that trying to correct views like yours has been a central issue for college and pre-college curricula.

Can you answer to it, rather than appealing to authority?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Can you answer to it, rather than appealing to authority?

Can you indicate you have the faintest idea what this means?

 

[Bunyip]

Can you indicate you have the faintest idea what this means?

Sadly this sort of silliness is about as far as you can go Legion. I'll leave you to it.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I thought the Norse and Roman philosophy was Kill, Plunder, Rape, and Conquer. Rather simplistic if you ask me

 

[Bunyip]

Sum of Awe

There is some fantastic Asian and Middle Eastern philosophy also, the Art of War by Sun Tzu has been a standard military and philosophical text for more than 2500 years. Not to forget Confuscious, the Tao Te Ching.

From a western perspective Greece certainly dominates, however from the Arabic and Chinese perspective there are many other valuable sources of philosophy.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

While being no form of scientist myself I am still aware of this. Perhaps I should have called it the scientific approach or process.

Well put! And I apologize for my response, as I misunderstood you.

 

[DayRaven]

I thought the Norse and Roman philosophy was Kill, Plunder, Rape, and Conquer. Rather simplistic if you ask me

Ek trui a sjalfan mik.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Ek trui a sjalfan mik.

Dyslexia is hard, I understand that reading and writing disabilities can be easily overcome though. May god bless your little soul