> Dear Stacy
>
> Thanks for your comment! :-)
>
I'm deleting most of the message, to save space, but I find some parts of it
disturbing. Bo Klintberg quoted from memory "something like" what Neugebauer
said about Egyptian, Chinese, and Maya astronomy, claiming that N. said
that there was "no need" to discuss these. Then Stacy Langton quoted
these sayings of N. in full. This showed that N. dedicated a whole "book"
to explain why he did not consider Egyptian astronomy, and explained
briefly his attitude to Chinese and Maya astronomies. Commenting about
this, Bo Klintberg said (in part)
> If he REALLY would have been interested in
> the issues of transmission between cultures, then he would first have
> learned Sanskrit, Chinese, etc, and after that spent several years to
> objectively compare the different accounts in their primary sources, as
> well as making an attempt to understand the cultural issues in each and
> one of these civilizations. Then, if was an honest and objective scholar,
> he would have come to other conclusions than he did now.
>
Thus, B.K. first concludes that N. was not REALLY interested in certain
vital issues, so he can read minds between the lines. Then he dictates
what is the ONLY possible methodology for studying these issues.
Finally, he states what type of conclusions N. would have come to, were
he "honest and objective". Thus, it's impossible to come to conclusions
other than B.K.'s, you cannot even simply make a mistake, any other
conclusion can be come by only by subjectivity and dishonesty. B.K. is
apparently wholly objective, possibly by definition.
I cannot take such argumentation seriously, not as a scientific endeavour.
I'm also disturbed by the use, in another message, of the normative
expression "enlightened", as referring to historical investigations.
Avinoam Mann
>B.K.:
>> > Is that the <standard> way of "improving" this discussion? What I remember
>> > from _A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy_ is that he said
>> > something like "there is no need to discuss Egyptians, Maya, or the
>> > Chinese." And in practice he didn't discuss so much about the Indians
>> > either, more than saying that they got everything they had from the
>> > Greeks.
>> >
Stacy Langton:
>>
>> Here is what Neugebauer actually said (p. 2):
>>
>> "Again by reason of incompetence I have omitted all discussion of
>> the history of astronomy in China.Its influence upon the Islamic and
>> Western development is probably not visible earlier than the creation of
>> Mongol states in Western Asia.Thus the damage done by omitting China is
>> perhaps not too great and at any rate is alleviated by ignorantia.
>>
>> "No relation whatsoever exists between our study and Maya
>> astronomy.Consequently no reference to this field of study will be
>> found in the following pages."
>>
>> And at the beginning of "Book III: Egypt", he writes (p. 559):
>>
>> "Egypt has no place in a work on the history of mathematical
>> astronomy.Nevertheless I devote a separate "Book" on this subject in
>> order to draw the reader's attention to its insignificance which cannot
>> be too strongly emphasized in comparison with the Babylonian and the
>> Greek contribution to the development of scientific astronomy.
>>