Ancient science is not the same as pseudoscience. The problem with a lot of the ancient sources is the lack of proofs. What I am arguing is that lack of proofs

Ancient science is not the same as pseudoscience. The problem with a lot of the ancient sources is the lack of proofs. What I am arguing is that lack of proofs in ancient mathematical texts doesn't mean that it is all bunkum, and the authors did not know what they were talking about. I am not talking cultural relativism or "social science is a science" relativism. Again, another example: Euler is the father of modern analysis, through his "Analysis of the Infinite" [1]. None of his proofs are rigorous according to modern standards. Do you think Feynman would've called Euler a fool? [1] http://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/mathematical-treasures-eulers-analysis-of-the-infinite http://www.maa.org/press/periodicals/convergence/mathematica...