"Scientific" Thinking and Early Greek Science = 'cosmology'

The Problem:

• Because 'Nature' is so critical to human prosperity and because natural forces can be so threatening and/or benevolent, all societies have attempted to bring it [nature] under control [more cynically: to create an illusion that humans / human behavior can control the forces of nature].
• As nature tends to act in a similar or 'orderly' way over time [spiral1 and spiral2], this belief system works quit well under normal circumstances; there is sufficient pattern to make predictions.. E.g. rainfall in Eugene averages 51 inches per year, ±8inches.
• Of greater concern however were the anomalies in the Nature: that comets occasionally and unexpectedly appeared in the skies, and that some planets appeared to move in erratic, yet predictable ways was not such a serious problem because they did not affect human life directly, but other cataclysmic and unexpected events like earthquakes, floods, tornados, and other natural events directly threatened human existence.
• How could those forces be explained? and how could they be controlled? Religion, especially polytheism, offered a compelling sense of control.

Characteristic features of polytheism:

• everything we observe in nature is a reflection of the will of the gods; they reveal their will; it is up to humans to 'read' the signs correctly. Accurate observation is then critical. Humans need gurus (priests) to record and interpret the signs and the related events.
• there is an intimate connection between human behavior, divinity, and acts of nature. That is, what happens in nature is a reflection of how the gods judge human behavior. Human behavior invokes a response from the gods, and that response (benevolent or malevolent) finds expression in natural events. Human behavior, ritual, prayer, magic do make a difference in evoking a sense of control over Nature. NOTE: this without this connection, humans have no 'control' over nature.
• The celestial and the terrestrial worlds are mirror images of one another; gods and kings have absolute control. ==> we will return to this theme

1. Program: Divide into two groups, and then then into smaller units of three. Which of these documents is 'scientific' and which is not? What are the reasons for your classification?
   1. Group A will discuss documents Amos and Hippocratic School
   2. Group B will examine the documents from Herodotus
   3. Group C will examine the catalogues of events, and the 'materia medica"
      1. What assumptions are made in these passages about nature?
      2. To what extent may these documents be classified as science?
      3. Consider the role of observation, of testing hypotheses; of models; of theories and constructs. Each group will write up its conclusion and present them to the others. Each text will be treated by at least two groups.
      4. Consider the logical fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc
2. Texts

1. Critical characteristics of Greek scientific thinking...
   1. Clear and conscious distinction between the natural and the supernatural; that is, natural phenomena not products of divine judgment, or of random or arbitrary (divine) influence; divinity not denied, but not assumed to be active. Esp. important in the investigation of unexpected natural phenomena like earthquakes, lightning, eclipses. Not signs of divine intervention; so prayer, ritual and human behavior do not affect Nature.
   2. Knowledge is secular; it is not the monopoly of a priestly class.
   3. The practice of public debate. Within the context of public discussion of political and legal matters of the city-state. Political decisions taken by citizen-soldiers. More generally,
      1. the early cosmologists, whether in Ionia (western Turkey) or in Sicily knew about and critiqued each others theories.
      2. Demonstrates that such speculation had a "popular" audience, one that extended well beyond an individual city-state to include the much of the Greek world. This audience was interested in the discussion and transmitted the concepts to others.
      3. these cosmologists were for the most part not professional scientists, but rather politicians and businessmen; physicians and teachers of rhetoric.
   4. Limitations --two connected notions:
      1. Generally a lack of experimentation
      2. Generally not concerned about the utilitarian / practical applications; development of the intellect as the ideal of human fulfillment .
2. Subjects of inquiry
1. The explanation of unexpected natural phenomena: earthquakes, lightning, rainbows, etc.
2. the structure of the physical universe (kosmos). The "Chicken Little Question": What holds up the sky? why and how
3. How to explain change and transformation?