Ancient texts in discussions of science?

Certainly knowledge builds upon anothers knowledge, and so on, but it isn't inconcievable that certain wise and learned theories have lost in translation throughout the years. For instance, looking at the architecture in Egypt, is it possible that in some ways their mathematical inclinations were superior to that of ours? And if not superior, just maybe, vastly different than how we would do things today? I think its a slanderous accusation to assume that the ancients were some less intelligent or less informed. That may not always be the case. For all we know, they could have written volumes of text with all sorts of knowledge that we know nothing about because it has become lost.Of all the pieces we have of antiquity today, think how many tomes have not survived decay? But as for those that are extant, I think its perfectly fine to look upon their texts to look for clues that may offer some insight to us. It may yield no fruit but it certainly can't hurt.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

I agree that one need not automatically reject a text because it is old. On the other hand I also do not think anyone should feel obliged to automatically accept a text because it is old (or for any other reason, for that matter.).
What extraordinary Egyptian mathematics are you referring to? The pyramids are quite ordinary engineering.

I can't argue with that. I guess it was the scale and scope of the project that I'm mostly referring to, not so much the architecture. I don't think we can say that the actual engineering was ordinary for the simple fact that they had no heavy machinery to lift huger slabs of concrete. Then again, because of the steep angle at which the would have bben working, somne theorize that the concrete (though not actually concrete/cement) into place. I think their methods must have been very ingenious. It would probably be considered even more honorable than it is if it weren't for the fact that their efforts were off the backs of slaves.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

Which pyramids would you be referring to?Brian.

Giza.

All of them at Giza, or just the Great Pyramid?Brian.

I guess the one that comes to mind is the Great Pyramid. There are two others that I'm unfamiliar with by name.

It is a common misconception that slaves were used to build the pyramids, probably stemming from the classic Cecil B DeMille movies.But, although there may well have been a few slaves employed, the pyramids were built by Egyptian labourers, employed after harvesting was completed.From here One of the biggest falsehoods about the Great Pyramid of Khufu is that it was built by slaves. The discovery of the tombs of the Pyramid builders on the Giza Plateau has finally and conclusively put this theory to rest. We now know with certainty that the Pyramids were built by Egyptian men and women -- not slaves! And, of course, there was never any Israelites employed in building any pyramid.Brian.

NJ writes: Khafre and Mykerinus.Giza pyramid complex - Wikipedia

It depends on what you're talking about. If it was related to historical data, generally speaking the ones closest to the event time wise knew more about the facts related to the event then those down the road thousands of years away from the event. Regarding the flood, most cultures have some version of a flood in their legends, et al. This is likely what the ancient Egyptian Tempest Stele, for example was aluding to in some of it's statements which to many of us lend corroboration to the ancient Biblical account. See my Exodus debate with Brian for link to the T. Stele. If there was a flood the ancients were not too far removed from the event time wise. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

You should try teaching some of my classes I would say that there's a better general education nowadays, and we do have equipment to assist our learning that the ancients didn't have, but many of them were pretty damn clever. Even in history writing, the important leap taken by Hecateaus, Polydius and Thucydides cannot be underestimated. It would have been good to see an example or two to support this and how one arrives at the conclusion that some are accurate and some are not. Antiquity is not a valid reason in itself, rather the plausibility of the information in the text is a valid reason.The problem with any text, ancient or not, is the intent of its author(s), they only inform you of what they want you to know, and in many cases we have no way of telling if it is accurate or not. They are useful, but the problem is the approach taken by the people involved in the discussion. Adherents will not critically analyse their sacred texts whilst any historian worth their salt HAS to critically analyse every source. The big problem with introducing a sacred text into an historical or scientific discussion is that it invariably leads to a discussion of the validity of the text rather than the topic under discussion.Adherents wish that non adherents would give their sacred texts the same authority that they do, but this is never going to happen.Brian.

Quite right, but there are so many to choose from!Looking at the ancient Greeks, for example, Archimedes did good work on density and other things and Eratosthenes made a remarkably good estimate of the diameter of the earth. Both used an approach that we would recognize as scientific, with experiments.Aristotle tried to do physics without experimenting, got things wrong much of the time, and probably delayed the appearance of modern science by hundreds of years. The history of the writings of Aristotle is a good example of the harm that can be done by slavish adherence to ancient texts.Other examples are the medieval herbals. They mixed sound (probably folk) knowledge with outrageous balderdash.If writings are supported by modern knowledge, we can regard them as accurate. If they are refuted by modern knowledge, we can say they are inaccurate. Otherwise, we don't know either way. We can get an estimate by considering whether the material is consistant with the way we now know the universe works. Personally, I think that the "wisdom of the ancients" notion is chiefly useful for making sensationalistic TV programs.In these comments, I am just referring to what the texts say. They can be good evidence about the times in which they were written whether what they say is accurate or not.

Well, your article clarifies some other common misnomers, namely, that when we think of slavery, we think of privaleged people beating less fortunate people. In reality, that type of maltreatment of slaves was probably the exception and not the rule. At that time, slaves and servants were often synonymous.One of the biggest falsehoods about the Great Pyramid of Khufu is that it was built by slaves. The discovery of the tombs of the Pyramid builders on the Giza Plateau has finally and conclusively put this theory to rest. We now know with certainty that the Pyramids were built by Egyptian men and women -- not slaves! Slavery, while it existed in Ancient Egypt, was not an important part of the economy, especially in the Old Kingdom, and, moreover, it is important to examine the meaning of the word "slavery". We think of slavery as the ownership of a person. In my opinion, in Ancient Egypt the word "slavery" meant a person who worked for another, like the modern term "servant". That's probably true because they were in Goshen.Edited by nemesis_juggernaut, : add italics

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt

since i can't post to your thread there buz i'll post here about the stele.
sorry buz but that stele is not about what you are thinking it is, it wasn't a flood, it was a storm, a huge memoral storm they had at the time
http://www.therafoundation.org/...gyptduringthereignofahmose
can an admin fix that i guess i need to learn how to make linkes shorterthe fact that you make the same old canard about floods being common, so there for there was a huge one that got distorted over time is silly
i'll tell you again what i have to keep telling people who say this: when you have a large group of people who live in a place that floods, such as the nile river, you are bound to have some sort of flood story and they will have common themes, because you have water,people,animals, and gods
its part fear, part entertainment and part proof of god power
this doesn't make it a true story
this argument is like saying that because israel exists that everything in the bible is true that happened there, its a baseless assuption
there are a lot of stories that arn't anything like the noah flood, and more are obvious that they were affected by missionaries

Along with all their Egyptian neighbors whose homes were passed over and who gave them farewell presents..

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.