2 ms·
I really liked how Feynman discussed Mayan astronomy - they had a higly accurate calendar based on detailed astronomical observations, which made pretty accurat
by photochemsyn 5y ago
I really liked how Feynman discussed Mayan astronomy - they had a higly accurate calendar based on detailed astronomical observations, which made pretty accurate predictions - but they didn't have a very good model, i.e. the notions of planets in space orbiting the sun had nothing to do with their system. Now, was the Mayan calendar a scientific system or not? It had observations and predictions, after all.
It's entirely possible the some of the scientific models we now use are similar in nature to the Mayan calendar, even though they're based on accurate observations and make good predictions. It's an interesting concept, in any case.
- Manuel_D 5y agoRight, plenty of early calendar systems formed the basis of early astronomy. It's fair to call that science. But calling mythological creation stories science is not. Rangi and Papa are no more scientific than Cronus and Gaia. It's literally teaching creationism, just a different creation story than the Judeo-Christian one.
- zozbot234 5y agoEarly astronomy was indistinguishable from astrology. Is that "science" too?
- Manuel_D 5y agoThe astronomical parts of that, yes. Say some historical scholar plotted the movements of the planets and concluded that people born under a certain constellation share a characteristic because of a supernatural aspect of the planet. The former - the tracking of celestial objects - is science, the latter part rooted in superstition is not.