6 ms·

Anaxagoras Was Exiled for Claiming the Moon Was a Rock

95 points by pps 7y ago

acqq 7y ago
An Hipparchus (c. 190 BC - c. 120 BC) estimated the distance to the Moon in the Earth radii between 62 and 80 (depending on the method he used). Today's measurements are between 55 and 64, so it was quite good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus
perl4ever 7y ago
I find the picture of Anaxagoras (the crater) rather annoying, because they didn't orient it with the light source coming from the upper left, as is (or used to be) kind of the convention on a computer screen.
- s9w 7y ago
  Wow you're right - it's so much better rotated: https://files.catbox.moe/tt6mu1.png https://files.catbox.moe/tt6mu1.png
  - craigsmansion 7y ago
    Wow, indeed. My thanks to both you and the OP. I had to replicate this to see if it wasn't some sort of trickery. Frankly this is a little unsettling; why am I primed to to recognise something "with the light source coming from the upper left"? Is it an effect of previous continuous exposure or a general principle of how the brain interprets lights and shadows?
    - thristian 7y ago
      The sun is normally in the sky above us, we build buildings with lights on the ceiling or high up on the walls, so it's reasonable that an image with a light-source above would be more understandable than one with a light-source below. It's very unusual for a light-source to be exactly aligned with the thing it illuminates, so unusual that if you see it, it looks wrong[1]. It's reasonable that an image with a light-source to the top-left or top-right would be more understandable than one with a light-source directly above. As for why "left" rather than "right", I don't have a good answer. When Microsoft redesigned Windows 3.0[2] to make the buttons look more like buttons (instead of just rectangular or rounded outlines), they decided to put the light-source at the top-left rather than the top-right. Why they chose that direction I don't know, but I notice the mouse-cursor also points to the top-left, the most important menu (the system menu) is in the top-left, the title bar is at the top and the menus in the menu-bar are left-aligned, etc. etc. I don't think there's a neurological reason why shading should have a top-left light-source, but if you're making an interface for people who read left-to-right, top-to-bottom and you visually organise everything in that same order, it makes sense to align shading in the same way as everything else rather than have it be The One Thing Out Of Place. [1]: https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/04/lahaina-noon-when-shadows-disappear.html https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/04/lahaina-noon-when-shad... [2]: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win30 https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win30
      - hyperpallium 7y ago
        When writing, right-handed, a lamp to the right will cast your hand's shadow over the nib, and will cramp your elbow room.
      - craigsmansion 7y ago
        Thanks for your reply and links. After trying some more angles, it seems "up" and "down" lighting makes the difference between "innies" and "outies", which hints the brain's interpretation of lights and shadows is in play here. "Left" or "right" doesn't seem to make a big difference.
- drcongo 7y ago
  My brain just can't see it as an indent with the rotation in the article, no matter how hard I try.
  - arrrg 7y ago
    It’s exactly the reverse for me. Weird.
jmkd 7y ago
A lovely story and a useful reminder that every single scientific norm or fact we take for granted likely has thousands of years of thought, debate, controversy before reaching the relative stasis from which we build.
- mysterydip 7y ago
  Also a reminder that every norm we take for granted may be wrong :)
- zaarn 7y ago
  Well it's more of a story about how scientists who support the wrong politicians in ancient Greece might find themselves exiled if their side ends up loosing, regardless of their scientific beliefs.
  - jmkd 7y ago
    Which happens to this day in modern democracies, except swap exiled for ostracised.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
axilmar 7y ago
...if Anaxagoras knew that some people today would consider the earth flat and the moon made of literally cheese, he would have commited suicide himself.
VLM 7y ago
I have no idea what the title "An Ancient Greek Philosopher Was Exiled for Claiming the Moon Was a Rock, Not a God" has to do with the detailed explanation in the last three paragraphs of how he was exiled. The misleading implication of the title seems to be the ancients were dumb for exiling someone who had a controversial scientific opinion; we'd certainly never do that now (LOL); the records and detailed explanation imply he was exiled simply for supporting the wrong politician. Its exactly analogous to claiming James Watson was attacked because people didn't like the chemical bond structure of DNA.
- itp 7y ago
  The article writes: > Anaxagoras was arrested, tried and sentenced to death, ostensibly for breaking impiety laws while promoting his ideas about the moon and sun. This provides the context to understand that while the title is true at a surface level, his claims around the moon likely served as pretext rather than true cause. You write: > Its exactly analogous to claiming James Watson was attacked because people didn't like the chemical bond structure of DNA. I disagree. An exact analogy would require that James Watson was actually attacked for his belief in the structure of DNA, which served as a pretext for the real claims against him. James Watson was attacked directly for his views on race.
- Nasrudith 7y ago
  If they would throw away the thinkers and ideas over those things does it really make a difference if it was a pretext or actual fundamentalism? It still goes down as rejected heresy and the avenue halted. Also even though James Watson's racist ideas are pannes nobody questions the shape of DNA.
Agentlien 7y ago
The title of the article doesn't really match what the article has to say about his trial. It does, however, work nicely as an example of a general rule I have: I'm always suspicious when hearing tales about scientists who were punished for their discoveries by less enlightened minds. Looking into it, it mostly turns out they were either sentenced for other crimes or, as this article claims was the case here, that it was most likely a political move masquerading as being motivated by theology. Which itself falls under another similar guideline: if any big societal undertaking (wars unfortunately seem to be the most common example) seems motivated by religion, that's usually not the true reason behind it. Perhaps my own beliefs are colouring my interpretations, but it just seems like people's actual motivations tend to be pragmatic but they market their actions as being out of belief or morality.
- VLM 7y ago
  Your observation is correct. The reasoning is you can't get people to fight in a war or civil war or invasion by telling them "you're just like the other guys although your leaders doesn't like our leaders" Its easy to get them to fight if you can propagandize them into thinking the other guys have the wrong religious beliefs, they hate civilization, they oppose your lifestyle, they're deplorables, etc, then they'll fight. This is why (small L) libertarianism and political centrism is hated by all groups of all opinions who are in power; you can't get people to kill for your profit using the rhetoric of "you have a nice life over there while I have a nice life over here".
- jessaustin 7y ago
  ...if any big societal undertaking... seems motivated by religion, that's usually not the true reason behind it. It's increasingly apparent that not even religion is motivated by religion. Since prehistoric times there have been economically unproductive but rhetorically skilled men who have desired strange sexual acts with typically off-limits partners, without the hassle of marrying or purchasing those partners. Those men have become shamans, priests, monks, gurus, and preachers. That's the purpose of religion.
  - foxyv 7y ago
julienfr112 7y ago
Instead of beeing what ? Cheese ? TLDR : instead of being a god.
rgrieselhuber 7y ago
The Science was settled.
danjc 7y ago
A little off topic but what great names the Greeks had. If Anaxagoras was running for president I'd be tempted to vote for him just based on his name.
- propertius 7y ago
  And don't forget Anaximenes and Anaximander!
- yongjik 7y ago
  I wonder if this is actually the other way, that is, so many words and names of Greek origin are associated with ancient philosophy and classical wonders (Archimedes, Pythagoras, Parthenon, etc.) that these words end up sounding "great".
8bitsrule 7y ago
A more formal intro to the Anaxagoras story: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anaxagoras/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anaxagoras/ "Democritus, a younger contemporary, dated his own life in relation to Anaxagoras’, saying that he was young in the old age of Anaxagoras (DK59A5); he reportedly accused Anaxagoras of plagiarism. Although Anaxagoras lived in Athens when Socrates was a youth and young adult, there are no reports that Anaxagoras and Socrates ever met. In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates says that he heard someone reading from Anaxagoras’ book.... As with all the Presocratics, Anaxagoras’ work survives only in fragments..."

95 points by pps 7y ago

acqq 7y ago

An Hipparchus (c. 190 BC - c. 120 BC) estimated the distance to the Moon in the Earth radii between 62 and 80 (depending on the method he used). Today's measurements are between 55 and 64, so it was quite good. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus

perl4ever 7y ago

I find the picture of Anaxagoras (the crater) rather annoying, because they didn't orient it with the light source coming from the upper left, as is (or used to be) kind of the convention on a computer screen.

s9w 7y ago
Wow you're right - it's so much better rotated: https://files.catbox.moe/tt6mu1.png https://files.catbox.moe/tt6mu1.png
- craigsmansion 7y ago
  Wow, indeed. My thanks to both you and the OP. I had to replicate this to see if it wasn't some sort of trickery. Frankly this is a little unsettling; why am I primed to to recognise something "with the light source coming from the upper left"? Is it an effect of previous continuous exposure or a general principle of how the brain interprets lights and shadows?
  - thristian 7y ago
    The sun is normally in the sky above us, we build buildings with lights on the ceiling or high up on the walls, so it's reasonable that an image with a light-source above would be more understandable than one with a light-source below. It's very unusual for a light-source to be exactly aligned with the thing it illuminates, so unusual that if you see it, it looks wrong[1]. It's reasonable that an image with a light-source to the top-left or top-right would be more understandable than one with a light-source directly above. As for why "left" rather than "right", I don't have a good answer. When Microsoft redesigned Windows 3.0[2] to make the buttons look more like buttons (instead of just rectangular or rounded outlines), they decided to put the light-source at the top-left rather than the top-right. Why they chose that direction I don't know, but I notice the mouse-cursor also points to the top-left, the most important menu (the system menu) is in the top-left, the title bar is at the top and the menus in the menu-bar are left-aligned, etc. etc. I don't think there's a neurological reason why shading should have a top-left light-source, but if you're making an interface for people who read left-to-right, top-to-bottom and you visually organise everything in that same order, it makes sense to align shading in the same way as everything else rather than have it be The One Thing Out Of Place. [1]: https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/04/lahaina-noon-when-shadows-disappear.html https://www.amusingplanet.com/2017/04/lahaina-noon-when-shad... [2]: https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win30 https://guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/win30
    - hyperpallium 7y ago
      When writing, right-handed, a lamp to the right will cast your hand's shadow over the nib, and will cramp your elbow room.
    - craigsmansion 7y ago
      Thanks for your reply and links. After trying some more angles, it seems "up" and "down" lighting makes the difference between "innies" and "outies", which hints the brain's interpretation of lights and shadows is in play here. "Left" or "right" doesn't seem to make a big difference.
drcongo 7y ago
My brain just can't see it as an indent with the rotation in the article, no matter how hard I try.
- arrrg 7y ago
  It’s exactly the reverse for me. Weird.

jmkd 7y ago

A lovely story and a useful reminder that every single scientific norm or fact we take for granted likely has thousands of years of thought, debate, controversy before reaching the relative stasis from which we build.

mysterydip 7y ago
Also a reminder that every norm we take for granted may be wrong :)
zaarn 7y ago
Well it's more of a story about how scientists who support the wrong politicians in ancient Greece might find themselves exiled if their side ends up loosing, regardless of their scientific beliefs.
- jmkd 7y ago
  Which happens to this day in modern democracies, except swap exiled for ostracised.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

axilmar 7y ago

...if Anaxagoras knew that some people today would consider the earth flat and the moon made of literally cheese, he would have commited suicide himself.

VLM 7y ago

I have no idea what the title "An Ancient Greek Philosopher Was Exiled for Claiming the Moon Was a Rock, Not a God" has to do with the detailed explanation in the last three paragraphs of how he was exiled. The misleading implication of the title seems to be the ancients were dumb for exiling someone who had a controversial scientific opinion; we'd certainly never do that now (LOL); the records and detailed explanation imply he was exiled simply for supporting the wrong politician. Its exactly analogous to claiming James Watson was attacked because people didn't like the chemical bond structure of DNA.

itp 7y ago
The article writes: > Anaxagoras was arrested, tried and sentenced to death, ostensibly for breaking impiety laws while promoting his ideas about the moon and sun. This provides the context to understand that while the title is true at a surface level, his claims around the moon likely served as pretext rather than true cause. You write: > Its exactly analogous to claiming James Watson was attacked because people didn't like the chemical bond structure of DNA. I disagree. An exact analogy would require that James Watson was actually attacked for his belief in the structure of DNA, which served as a pretext for the real claims against him. James Watson was attacked directly for his views on race.
Nasrudith 7y ago
If they would throw away the thinkers and ideas over those things does it really make a difference if it was a pretext or actual fundamentalism? It still goes down as rejected heresy and the avenue halted. Also even though James Watson's racist ideas are pannes nobody questions the shape of DNA.

Agentlien 7y ago

The title of the article doesn't really match what the article has to say about his trial. It does, however, work nicely as an example of a general rule I have: I'm always suspicious when hearing tales about scientists who were punished for their discoveries by less enlightened minds. Looking into it, it mostly turns out they were either sentenced for other crimes or, as this article claims was the case here, that it was most likely a political move masquerading as being motivated by theology. Which itself falls under another similar guideline: if any big societal undertaking (wars unfortunately seem to be the most common example) seems motivated by religion, that's usually not the true reason behind it. Perhaps my own beliefs are colouring my interpretations, but it just seems like people's actual motivations tend to be pragmatic but they market their actions as being out of belief or morality.

VLM 7y ago
Your observation is correct. The reasoning is you can't get people to fight in a war or civil war or invasion by telling them "you're just like the other guys although your leaders doesn't like our leaders" Its easy to get them to fight if you can propagandize them into thinking the other guys have the wrong religious beliefs, they hate civilization, they oppose your lifestyle, they're deplorables, etc, then they'll fight. This is why (small L) libertarianism and political centrism is hated by all groups of all opinions who are in power; you can't get people to kill for your profit using the rhetoric of "you have a nice life over there while I have a nice life over here".
jessaustin 7y ago
...if any big societal undertaking... seems motivated by religion, that's usually not the true reason behind it. It's increasingly apparent that not even religion is motivated by religion. Since prehistoric times there have been economically unproductive but rhetorically skilled men who have desired strange sexual acts with typically off-limits partners, without the hassle of marrying or purchasing those partners. Those men have become shamans, priests, monks, gurus, and preachers. That's the purpose of religion.
- foxyv 7y ago

julienfr112 7y ago

Instead of beeing what ? Cheese ? TLDR : instead of being a god.

rgrieselhuber 7y ago

The Science was settled.

danjc 7y ago

A little off topic but what great names the Greeks had. If Anaxagoras was running for president I'd be tempted to vote for him just based on his name.

propertius 7y ago
And don't forget Anaximenes and Anaximander!
yongjik 7y ago
I wonder if this is actually the other way, that is, so many words and names of Greek origin are associated with ancient philosophy and classical wonders (Archimedes, Pythagoras, Parthenon, etc.) that these words end up sounding "great".

8bitsrule 7y ago

A more formal intro to the Anaxagoras story: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anaxagoras/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/anaxagoras/ "Democritus, a younger contemporary, dated his own life in relation to Anaxagoras’, saying that he was young in the old age of Anaxagoras (DK59A5); he reportedly accused Anaxagoras of plagiarism. Although Anaxagoras lived in Athens when Socrates was a youth and young adult, there are no reports that Anaxagoras and Socrates ever met. In Plato’s Phaedo, Socrates says that he heard someone reading from Anaxagoras’ book.... As with all the Presocratics, Anaxagoras’ work survives only in fragments..."