4 ms·

> Every culture observed and most rendered calculations on the moon. Calculating eclipses was similarly attempted and solved by practically every major civiliza

> Every culture observed and most rendered calculations on the moon. Calculating eclipses was similarly attempted and solved by practically every major civilization. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting it was only India. I was saying there's something western-centric about dating things to Galileo. However... > Nobody, however, methodically delved into lunar makeup and origins in a way remotely scientific, in part because the scientific method is a relatively recent invention. Fair point. If you're saying that anything prior to the scientific method (or that doesn't utilize the scientific method) doesn't count as science, I can see this argument and am happy to concede the point.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> anything prior to the scientific method (or that doesn't utilize the scientific method) doesn't count as science, I can see this argument Not quite arguing this. The article says it wasn't until Galileo that "scientists really [began] to study" the moon. Within the context of the moon's origin, it's a legitimate statement. Ancient astronomers weren't following the scientific method, but I wouldn't dismiss them as not being scientists. If someone said scientists didn't really start studying subatomic particles until the 19th century, it would be asinine to claim offense on the basis of Lucretius having mentioned indivisible building blocks of reality. Put another way, the same comment would have been stronger without the accusation of racism. (Qualifying with "mild" does nothing. Calling someone mildly idiotic isn't somehow less provocative than saying they're an idiot.)