Athenaeus and the Control

M. Witty
{"title":"Athenaeus and the Control","authors":"M. Witty","doi":"10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v14i1p161-170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Very early experiments described in ancient literature usually have no detailed explanation of the methods used let alone the explicit Control expected by modern scientists for comparison with Treatments. Athenaeus describes a rarely recorded exception in The Deipnosophistae which has been briefly noted in scientific literature but not sufficiently contextualized. The experiment described has one treatment, a control and Athenaeus cites the desirability of replication, making this passage read like a modern text rather than an ancient one. Because technical processes were invented in ancient times I assume that experiments were also practiced, even though they are not described in ancient literature. This passage in Athenaeus exemplifies, by rare contrast, the general lack of description for ancient scientific methods. This lack may be because the ancient practitioners of technical processes did not have the reason modern scientists use for disclosure of all methods and results. Moderns achieve monetization that is protected by Intellectual Property Law or by acquisition of authority followed by salaried teaching in the academy. Ancient experimenters protected their discoveries by secrecy and maintained monopolies by concealment, an inconvenience for modern scholars. The form of ancient literature is important for this subject: it is not like modern scientific literature. When the ancients mention scientific subjects in writing it is in the form of literary discourse and debate where the aim is cerebral. There is no description of technical details where the aim is to allow replication of the experiment. Comfortable logic not experiment is described and intellectual improvement was usually the aim of ancient literature, rather than practical outcomes. The only reason we have knowledge of ancient practitioners of something similar to modern scientific methods from literature is that their kind of technical antics were briefly mentioned by ancient authors, because of their surprising and amusing nature.","PeriodicalId":185531,"journal":{"name":"Journal of ancient philosophy","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of ancient philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.1981-9471.v14i1p161-170","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Very early experiments described in ancient literature usually have no detailed explanation of the methods used let alone the explicit Control expected by modern scientists for comparison with Treatments. Athenaeus describes a rarely recorded exception in The Deipnosophistae which has been briefly noted in scientific literature but not sufficiently contextualized. The experiment described has one treatment, a control and Athenaeus cites the desirability of replication, making this passage read like a modern text rather than an ancient one. Because technical processes were invented in ancient times I assume that experiments were also practiced, even though they are not described in ancient literature. This passage in Athenaeus exemplifies, by rare contrast, the general lack of description for ancient scientific methods. This lack may be because the ancient practitioners of technical processes did not have the reason modern scientists use for disclosure of all methods and results. Moderns achieve monetization that is protected by Intellectual Property Law or by acquisition of authority followed by salaried teaching in the academy. Ancient experimenters protected their discoveries by secrecy and maintained monopolies by concealment, an inconvenience for modern scholars. The form of ancient literature is important for this subject: it is not like modern scientific literature. When the ancients mention scientific subjects in writing it is in the form of literary discourse and debate where the aim is cerebral. There is no description of technical details where the aim is to allow replication of the experiment. Comfortable logic not experiment is described and intellectual improvement was usually the aim of ancient literature, rather than practical outcomes. The only reason we have knowledge of ancient practitioners of something similar to modern scientific methods from literature is that their kind of technical antics were briefly mentioned by ancient authors, because of their surprising and amusing nature.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
雅典娜和控制
古代文献中描述的非常早期的实验通常没有详细解释所使用的方法,更不用说现代科学家所期望的与治疗相比较的明确控制了。雅典娜在《神智学》中描述了一个很少有记录的例外,它在科学文献中被简要地注意到,但没有充分的语境化。所描述的实验有一种处理方法,一种对照,雅典娜乌斯引用了复制的可取性,使这篇文章读起来像现代文本而不是古代文本。因为技术过程是在古代发明的,所以我认为实验也被实践了,即使它们没有在古代文献中被描述。雅典娜的这段话,以罕见的对比,证明了普遍缺乏对古代科学方法的描述。这种缺乏可能是因为古代技术过程的实践者没有现代科学家用来披露所有方法和结果的理由。在知识产权法的保护下,或者通过获得权威,然后在学院里领薪水的教师,现代人实现了货币化。古代的实验者通过保密来保护他们的发现,并通过隐藏来维持垄断,这给现代学者带来了不便。古代文献的形式对这门学科很重要:它不像现代科学文献。当古人在文字中提到科学主题时,它是以文学话语和辩论的形式出现的,目的是大脑。没有对技术细节的描述,目的是允许重复实验。舒适的逻辑而不是实验被描述和智力的提高通常是古代文学的目的,而不是实际的结果。我们之所以能从文献中了解到古代从事类似现代科学方法的人,唯一的原因是,古代作家们曾简要地提到过他们那种令人惊讶和有趣的技术滑稽动作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Linguistic (and Ontological?) encounters between Plato and Karl Popper O ponto de intersecção entre compostos naturais propriamente e não propriamente substanciais em Aristóteles On Becoming Fearful Quickly: A Reinterpretation of Aristotle’s Somatic Model of Socratean akrasia. Some remarks against non-epistemic accounts of immediate premises in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics O justo cívico em Ethica Nicomachea V.6
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1