Where would we be now

Page 4 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

28 Aug 2009, 3:20 pm

I think that if the Roman Empire survived, yes we would be more scientifically advanced today. But the Romans would still be Christians, so I don't see what the 'graph' in the OP is supposed to show. Christianity's spread in the Roman Empire was an attempt to hold the Empire together, anyway. After the collapse the Church had a more dominant role in politics, though that would perhaps still be better than no political unity at all.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Aug 2009, 3:45 pm

Henriksson wrote:

The Romans were very anti-intellectual. Romans made practically no contribution to theoretical science or mathematics or any related philosophy. The philosophy that made the most advances under Roman hegemony were Stoicism and Epicurism, neither of which advanced science. The Romans also were very accepting of mystery cults and associated nonsense.

In technology the Romans made advances in road building, tunneling, bridge and aqueduct building and some metallurgy. Overall, they were not very progressive scientifically.

If Christianity had not caught on in the later part of Roman imperial history it would have made little difference. The Romans were just plain unscientific and unmathematical. Without the Renaissance and the neo-classical revival of Greek philosophy, Europe would not have developed science along lines that we would recognize.

ruveyn

Henriksson
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 23 Nov 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,534
Location: Sweden

28 Aug 2009, 4:02 pm

ruveyn wrote:

The Roman Numeral latched on for quite a while after the collapse of Rome. The reason Europe eventually adopted the Arab Numeral system was they simply couldn't compete in trade and so on if they used the Roman Numeral. Why couldn't a similar thing happen to the Romans?

Quote:

In technology the Romans made advances in road building, tunneling, bridge and aqueduct building and some metallurgy. Overall, they were not very progressive scientifically.

Many of these advancements disappeared after the fall of Rome, and the number of inventions during the Middle Ages were very few. It was like progress was at a halt, a hole in history.

Quote:

If Christianity had not caught on in the later part of Roman imperial history it would have made little difference. The Romans were just plain unscientific and unmathematical. Without the Renaissance and the neo-classical revival of Greek philosophy, Europe would not have developed science along lines that we would recognize.

ruveyn

You claim this. Why not? After the fall of Rome, civilization was most advanced in the Arab, Indian and Chinese empires, not the European.

Remember that much, if not all, of the infrastructure, political systems and so on simply disappeared in the Roman Empire after it's collapse. The British Isles under Roman control had a system of currency, for example, which simply died out along with Rome.

_________________
"Purity is for drinking water, not people" - Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

28 Aug 2009, 5:16 pm

The Romans and the Chinese have shown by example, just how far the purely empirical approach can go. The Romans, without developing any extensive theories managed to build tunnels, bridges, aqueducts, roads and piers. The discovery of concrete was a major find. It was purely empirical. The Romans had no theoretical science to explain why or how concrete set, but that made no difference to them. They learned how to use it, and they used it quite well.

The Chinese discovered gun powder, natural gas for light and heat and even drilled some petroleum. They discovered the magnetic compass and learned how to navigate with it. Unlike the Romans, the Chinese had some talent for abstract mathematics and developed a fair amount. However they never successfully merged the empirical with the abstract, and they never produced science in the form we have.

Had Rome survived, probably the world of today would look somewhat like Renaissance Italy. It is unlikely there would be practical steam engines for transport or industry. Even the Greeks in Alexandria, as smart as they were, never developed steam power any further than powering musical organs and amusing toys.

Conceivably the Romans might have developed steam powered engines to drain mines but that is a stretch. They had no inclination to abstract physical speculation or for abstract mathematics.

The empirical method is quite adequate for the material survival of mankind, but it does not take us out of the world. No moon rockets for either the Chinese or Romans. They would not have developed a proper theory of mechanics and gravitation. The West, with all its advantages did not do so until maybe 350 years ago. Very recent. Galileo turned a magnifier skyward, barely 400 years ago and Kepler barely gave a description of how the planets move in the last 370 years or so. Newton did not get the right answer to within the first order of approximation until 1686.

The only chance for an end run around history could have come if Archimedes has established a school. Of all the Greek thinkers he came the closest to merging abstract mathematics and a proper idea of force and motion. Had he established a school and had civilization not collapsed for several hundred years in the West we might have had a real breakthrough. But that is not what happened. Some Roman grunt killed Archimedes as Syracusa, because Archimedes gave him some lip. That is how the Romans operated. If they bothered you, use the gladius or pylim.

ruveyn

Tollorin
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Jun 2009
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,178
Location: Sherbrooke, Québec, Canada

28 Aug 2009, 7:59 pm

parts wrote:

Well

This is quite misleading, of course there had been some progresse lost and things had been quite bleak for a few century. But this graphic completly ignore how much the Middle Ages had know progress and societal changes. It's the Middle Ages that brought modern institutions like banking ang universities. There also been progress in agriculture, bringing more foods and trade. Alas, there also been progress in war and weapons of course... :roll:

Henrikson wrote:

They adopted Arab numerals because it's was more easy for calculations.

Henrikson wrote:

Many of these advancements disappeared after the fall of Rome, and the number of inventions during the Middle Ages were very few. It was like progress was at a halt, a hole in history.

Not true, the middle ages as a epoch of huge social changes. It's really the birth of our civilization as we know it.(A mix of german, celt, christian and greco-roman cultures.)

ruveyn wrote:

The science and his theorical framework come from ancient greck culture, which has the dominating culture in Roman Empire. And really, there's no way we can know what will had happen if the Roman Empire survived, with the century of society change it will had been through.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

28 Aug 2009, 9:41 pm

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

Orwell wrote:

What's with the constant, sheep-like repetition of the mantra "There is no such thing as a safe dose of radiation" that I keep hearing in these articles? We're constantly bombarded with radiation. Without radiation from the sun, we would be dead.

And here I thought you had some scientific knowhow. Don't you know the difference between gamma radiation and infra red?

We also get ultra violet and some gamma radiation from the sun. Fortunately most of the radiant energy is in the green to yellow part of the visible spectrum and most of the short wavelength (high energy stuff) is stopped by atmosphere. However people who fly above 20,000 ft. m.s.l. receive ionizing radiation from the sun. We also get a certain amount of ionizing radiation from cosmic rays. The earth and its atmosphere are constantly bombarded by charged particles which travel at nearly the speed of light. When they colide with the atmosphere (those that make it through the Van Allen Belt) there is ionizing Compton radiation.

In addition we receive doses of ionizing radiation from the earth itself. All the magma spewed by volcanoes have a portion of radioactive heavy elements.

Piles of coal ash and tailings also are loaded with radioactive polonium and radioactive thorium.

ruveyn

There is no question that hard radiation does come from natural sources but the intensity of that radiation is a critical factor and although the natural hard radiation background does cause mutation and cell damage the difference between that and the radiation created artificially by accidents with atomic power and the deliberate association of miners with uranium sources makes all the difference in the world. The number of near misses if not disastrous accidents in atomic facilities is truly threatening and the people who run these places are extremely secretive about their sloppy management since no commercial insurance is available for their installations. The US government must insure them to make their operations possible as a possible (and in the long run probable) major accident could kill thousands of people (if not millions) with dangerous radiation destroying huge sections of land making them uninhabitable for centuries.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Aug 2009, 6:38 am

Sand wrote:

. The US government must insure them to make their operations possible as a possible (and in the long run probable) major accident could kill thousands of people (if not millions) with dangerous radiation destroying huge sections of land making them uninhabitable for centuries.

Solution clear: Offshore siting. It will raise the cost of electrical production by fission a bit but it will remove the danger. Also siting in remote areas.

By the way having a dam which could break threatens everyone down stream. Are you against high head hydro-electric facilities, too? And I might point out that LNG (liquid natural gas) can do as much damage as a thermonuclear weapon (but without the residual radioactivity). Are you against LNG as well? You should be if you wish to be consistent. But that is a frail wish, is it not? Even photovoltaic power has a hazard. The stuff that the photovoltaic collectors is made from consists of highly toxic chemicals. I know! Lets freeze in the the cold and dark!

Every technology beyond chicken sh*t and granola has a hazard. He who would have the benefits must bear the cost of the risks.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Aug 2009, 9:52 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

All hazards aren't equal. Some are worth risking. Some are not.

techstepgenr8tion
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 Feb 2005
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 24,593
Location: 28th Path of Tzaddi

29 Aug 2009, 9:58 am

Something I can't believe whizzed by me, not that I couldn't think of it but I never thought to bring it up. Isn't the obvious just dangling in front of our faces when you look at that heuristic and see that the Greeks and Romans were the uptick of progress before people got so silly and depraved to start believing in God or Gods? I can't help but find that a bit ironic.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Aug 2009, 10:06 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

The Romans had two main flaws: One, they never could figure out how to get political stability. With them it was a Hobbesian warre of all against all. Two, they ingested a lot of lead which made their ruling class infertile and crazy.

But the Romans at their prime were terrific. Studying their accomplishments helps me get in touch with My Inner Fascist.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Aug 2009, 11:05 am

ruveyn wrote:

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

Why blame it on the Romans? Your coziness with that inner thing is evidently a major foundation of your total psyche.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

29 Aug 2009, 11:09 am

Sand wrote:

Why blame it on the Romans? Your coziness with that inner thing is evidently a major foundation of your total psyche.

I don't blame the Romans for anything. Rather, I praise them. However they did have flaws and they lost in the long run. One of their victims, the Jews, survived to witness their ruination. I find it ironic that Jewish tourists to Rome can see the Arch of Titus. It says on it "Jerusalem Capta". In 2009, Jerusalem (in the words of Jessie Jackson) is a Hymie Town.

ruveyn

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

29 Aug 2009, 11:13 am

ruveyn wrote:

Sand wrote:

Why blame it on the Romans? Your coziness with that inner thing is evidently a major foundation of your total psyche.

I'm sure the Pope would be fascinated by that conclusion.

skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

29 Aug 2009, 11:15 am

ruveyn wrote:

When I mentioned in the other thread about your discussing learning beyond the empirical, this was what I was referring to. You seem to very much respect the idea of learning the abstract mathematics but you have no want to apply it to humans and understanding of cultures and societies.

Again, primal.

But when you actually do take a want to learn about it, you'll see just how much our world is very controlled today and it's without use of blunt force. It's very much shown through strength but it's strength of mind and careful planning to manipulate others into doing your dirty work...after all, there's enough primal jingoists like yourself out there who are more than eager to kill and see others die to prove your strength. It's just kinda sad in a way that you don't realize that you're just a puppet and a slave working for others.

_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson

pakled
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 12 Nov 2007
Age: 67
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,015

29 Aug 2009, 11:29 am

The Romans were masters of innovation, at least in the first half of their civilization. For Invention, they merely conquered the Greeks...

The Roman (classical) concept was of Arts, not Science per se. The Muses were of typically 'art-related' fields, but mathematics was also recognized. The Trivium and Quadrivium were the study of the seven arts.

As stated previously, most of the 'advances' until the Renaissance were just idle speculation and experimentation by those who had sufficient means to try out ideas. The idea of a purposeful, steady 'progress' in knowledge, didn't really catch on until a few hundred years ago. Most societies didn't contemplate perfection (at least not in this life) until Protestantism.

BTW- yes, it was the Romans who burned the Library at Alexandria (and skinned alive the librarian Hypatia), but they were Christian Romans...

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

29 Aug 2009, 11:36 am

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

As an Aspie, sometimes I have difficulty recognizing sarcasm. Is this sarcasm?

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Page 4 of 5 [ 68 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next

Jump to:

Where would we be now Post Reply New Topic

Where would we be now