1. Critical characteristics of Greek scientific thinking [of some Greeks...Please be very careful NOT to generalize to ALL Greeks; the sources are very clear that there were many different opinions and even in relatively tolerant Athens scholar / scientists, among them and Socrates, could be prosecuted for 'impiety' , a major felony for it could bring about divine punishment. That is, some Greeks tolerated this form of speculation; others rejected it.
  2. Characteristic features:
    1. Clear and conscious distinction between the natural and the supernatural; that is, natural phenomena are not products of divine judgment, or of random or arbitrary (divine) influence; divinity not denied, but not assumed to be active. This distinction is especially important in the investigation of unexpected natural phenomena like earthquakes, lightning, eclipses. Namely, a critical mass [tho perhaps not the majority] of Greeks did not perceive such events to be signs of divine intervention; consequently, they understood that 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 in the Greek city states [in contrast to the autocratic systems of the ANE]. Within the context of public discussion of political and legal matters of the city-state. Political decisions taken by citizen-soldiers and discussion was rooted in skepticism. More generally,
      1. the early cosmologists, whether in Ionia (western Turkey) or in Sicily knew about, discussed and critiqued each others' theories.
      2. Demonstrates that such speculation and reflection had a "popular" audience, one that extended well beyond Athens and included all the individual city-state of the Greek world. This audience, and commercial interests and traders form the basis, 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 [a tradition that will continue into the early modern period]. They traveled. And cities invited the most prominent to be their guests and provided lucrative incentives.
      4. the audience: diverse; some more receptive than others; but at the very least it was tolerant of speculation that denied the active role of the gods. Note the following from Protagoras: "Concerning the gods, I have no means of knowing whether they exist or not or of what sort they may be, because of the obscurity of the subject, and the brevity of human life."
    4. Limitations --two connected notions:
      1. Generally a lack of experimentation; and few if any instruments.
      2. Generally not concerned about the utilitarian / practical applications / technology; rather, the discussions centered around development of the intellectual understanding of nature, and of the kosmos.
  3. Subjects of inquiry
      1. Order = Kosmos is assumed to exist, hence the focus on explaining unexpected natural phenomena: earthquakes, lightning, rainbows, etc. Unexpected is really assumed to be a consequence of ignorance.
      2. the structure of the physical universe (kosmos). The "Chicken Little Question": What holds up the sky? why and how? do things fall? does the sun rise? do the winds blow?
      3. How to explain change and transformation? Important: accepted that there was conservation of matter; transformation a consequence of 'rarification' and/or 'condensation'.

Program:

Which of these documents is 'scientific' and which is not? What are the reasons for your classification?

Your task: Consider:

Texts