Talk:Science in classical antiquity

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History of Science Top‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Classical Greece and Rome High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[atomism#Is there an ultimate, indivisible unit of matter?|atoms]] The anchor (#Is there an ultimate, indivisible unit of matter?) has been deleted by other users before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 25 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Duonglamh1999.

Above undated message substituted from

The theory of refraction attributed to Plato does not appear in his Timaeus, nor is it attributed to Plato in the mainstream literature on the history of optics. The account seems to fit the experiment described by Ptolemy in his optics, and most accounts see it as a case of typical Ptolemaic "data smoothing," in which measured data is smoothed in terms of Ptolemy's prior assumptions about the bending of light. This section (and the independent article on Plato's Theory of Refraction) should be deleted -- or retitled as "Ptolemy's theory of refraction" and revised to reflect the historical literature on Ptolemy.--SteveMcCluskey 00:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading G.E.R. Lloyd's Early Greek Science... and came across a passage (pp. 139-142) where he spells out the uses and limits of experiments in the Greek "inquiry concerning nature" from the Pythagoreans to Ptolemy. In a nutshell, he documents enough experiments to demonstrate that the whole term Pre-experimental science is invalid -- or at the very least, expresses a particular point of view which has been seriously called into question.

I'd like some suggestions on how this article might be restructured to take better account of the complex nature of early Western scientific activity. My preference would be to shift the title from Pre-experimental science to Greek and Roman science, but that runs into the existing section on

I've changed the title of this section and am in the process of making a major edit in my user space. I'll return the revised version to this page shortly. --SteveMcCluskey 19:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The working version is now back in article space; I'm erasing the draft from my user space. --SteveMcCluskey 17:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

This bot has detected that this page contains an image,

the title is very deceptive, it seems to indicate the world's history in classical antiquity but in reality, it is the western and exclusively greek and roman topic, so why is this topic titled in a very deceptive way? These articles only serve to propagate eurocentric history of the world, and even though english language is a western language and the western english speaking world may use it in a cunning way to impose their history as world history, it will only be deception. i propose that this title should be changed into western classical antiquity because it was followed only in the western world Rameezraja001 (talk) 06:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, was there an Eastern Classical antiquity? Or American? The term "Classical antiquity" refers to the Mediterranean. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I mean, they're not wrong that the concept of

WP:RGW - but there's a reasonable discussion to be had about how we structure articles WRT history. Simonm223 (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Kiswahili ni somo lenye uwezo mkubwa sana wakufikiri kama ukilisoma Luna city vingi 154.74.143.39 (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]