Plato and Aristotle_ Crash Course History of Science #3 Notes

Post a Bb-style question, your answer, and an explanation. Things to think about: What was important to the Greeks as a group? Who might dissent from these values? Why did Plato and Aristotle have different priorities and values in their work? Review your classmates' questions. Choose one to rewrite and improve. Make sure you write out the new question. Explain why it needed to be improved and how your rewrite helped. Remember that no more than 2 people can respond to any one person with a rewrite. While Plato’s overall thinking may have been flawed, he inspired future scientists to think about laws within nature. Using the Crash Course video, which one of these statements would he have least agreed with? A. We live in an orderly universe B. Scientific findings should be based on observation above all C. Scientific findings should be based around what we know to be true D. Science can provide opinions The correct answer is B, scientific findings should be based on observation above all. This school of thought would be best associated with Aristotle, who believed that scientific knowledge should be based on observation and evidence. Plato highly valued order, and looked for findings that matched his opinions of the universe. This is a good question because it requires students to critically evaluate the beliefs of both Plato and Aristotle. It requires an understanding of both of their teachings. Plato and Aristotle: Crash Course History of Science #3 Notes 2 things he did- asked questions and inspired Plato and Aristotle Socratic method- negative hypothesis elimination Plato made the academy! Wow Let no one enter here who is ignorant of geometry Geometry in nature- rules Plato- philosopher v scientist idealist Aristotle- based on evidence, heart of scientific practice Scientists as servants to warlords? Interesting Aristotle merged the idea of the elements and the heavens- a complete system

PLATO VS ARISTOTLE Plato- cosmos was perfect, rules that could be studied, geometric, giant dnd dice. The cosmos is orderly (plato was a wee bit delusional) Aristotle- abstract, makes sense of observations, ether (hot cold dry wet). All elements are trying to get back to their natural state Aristotle recognized that elements didn't always exist in their pure forms EVERYTHING IS ALWAYS TRYING TO RETURN TO ITS TRUE ORDER Knowledge proceeded from the experience of the senses The three categories of the soul with the senses incorporated Plato inspired scholars to think about laws

Some things to think about: What was Rome's most significant innovation/project that helped establish them as one of the most powerful civilizations in history? Did the societal and cultural benefit of building public works (such as the Forum and Colosseum) justify the expense? A video is different from reading a textbook or a primary source. How does this format change your learning? Respond to your classmates. How did the leadership of Ceaser differ from Hain? How did that impact the use of technology in Rome? Caesar Augustus Claudius- water supply Nero Vespasian- coliseum Titus nerva Trajan Hadrian Nero v Vespasian Q. How did Roman leadership spanning from Vespasian to Trajan change the use of technology and infrastructure A. After the horrific and wasteful reign of Nero, Vespasian (an every man), built the coliseum as a testament to Rome’s architectural prowess and cultural superiority. This line of thinking was continued through Titus, Nerva, and eventually Trajan of Spain. Trajan built the Forum of Trajan, a massive complex of buildings which served as the center of all political endeavors. The forum was also home to a massive “shopping mall” of sorts. The architect responsible for this was a Greek named Apollodorus of Damascus. This is significant because, for the first time, two non Romans were responsible for Roman development and advancement. Vespasian and Trajan took two completely different approaches with the same end goal in mind, celebrating Rome. However, I think it’s worth noting that Vespasian probably built something to appeal to the masses in response to Nero’s reign of terror. The people needed to be able to trust their emperor again before something like Trajan’s Forum could be attempted. Post Nero, this likely would have been received poorly. I think this is a good question because it is so open ended. It allows students the chance to creatively answer the prompt while providing as much detail as they like. HIPPOCRATIC OATH NOTES AND WORK Q. What similarities do you notice between the source text and the hippocratic oath that today’s doctors swear? Are there any?

A. The oath asks physicians to serve patients to the best of their ability, much like in today’s practice. The oath also asks that physicians uphold something similar to modern day doctor patient confidentiality. Additionally, there is an overarching theme of “do no harm” which is the cornerstone of doctors’ practice today. I believe this is a good question because it asks students to draw comparisons between the source text of the hippocratic oath and the modern day version of it. This enables students to put the text in “real life” context and develop a greater connection and interest in the topic. Post to the discussion board a Bb-style test question that brings Merton into dialog with Hippocrates. Also include your answer and your explanation why it is a good question. This discussion post should up the game in how you think about creating exam questions. You are not just asking students to recall information, but rather, you want them to draw conclusions and synthesize information. Your goal going forward is to ask complex questions. Some things to think about: Is the Hippocratic Oath a set of norms? What are the differences between Mertonian norms and the Hippocratic Oath? Where do you see different values? Why are the values different in each? Do medicine and science have different values? Today? In ancient Greece? Why would this be the case? What are the specific differences in norms from ancient Greece to the 1950s when Merton outlined his ideas? What are the sources of the differences? I swear by Apollo the physician, and Asclepius, and Hygieia and Panacea and all the gods and goddesses as my witnesses, that, according to my ability and judgement, I will keep this Oath and this contract: To hold him who taught me this art equally dear to me as my parents, to be a partner in life with him, and to fulfill his needs when required; to look upon his offspring as equals to my own siblings, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or contract; and that by the set rules, lectures, and every other mode of instruction, I will impart a knowledge of the art to my own sons, and those of my teachers, and to students bound by this contract and having sworn this Oath to the law of medicine, but to no others. I will use those dietary regimens which will benefit my patients according to my greatest ability and judgement, and I will do no harm or injustice to them. I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion. In purity and according to divine law will I carry out my life and my art.

IBN TUFAYL Based on your reading from last module, which of these Aristotelian viewpoints did Hayy grapple with? A. The cosmos was perfect, and possessed rules that could be studied. There is no sign of a higher power B. All elements are trying to return to their natural state C. The universe is based in chaos The correct answer is B, All elements are trying to return to their natural state. This idea can be found in lines 71-77 of the source text, and is directly drawn from Aristotle. Ibn Tufayl’s work was based around the ideas of Aristotle. This is a good question because it requires students to draw upon previous knowledge from readings and make connections. Arabic and persian Abu bakr al razi- founder of psychology ophthalmology etc. smallpox and measles Wrote for the masses Al tibb al nabawi- advocated for medical practices mentioned in the quran. Alternative to hippocratic galenic medicine “Beefed” with Galen- his observations contradicted Galen’s claims Epitome of “on the word of noone” Scholasticism Avicenna or ibn cina- best writer to summarize and provide commentary on greco roman doctors Trota salerno- wrote lady health books Trotula ensemble- became foundation of gynecology Greeks and romans made conclusions based on animal observations- arabic and persians synthesized and made conclusions AVICENNA READINGS Persian scholar Ibn Sina What is new knowledge that Avicenna is presenting (as opposed to what they already know from Galen and Hippocrates)? Why would this be the dominant textbook for medicine for 600 years? What are some of the new ideas that he introduces into the cannon? Q. How did Avicenna structure his textbook, Cannon of Medicine? How was this new, and why was this useful? A. Avicenna’s writings were structured with a core claim at the heart of each page (punctum) from Aristotle, Hippocrates, or Galen. He then provided Annatatios , or notes, from famous physicians. Ibn Sina summarized these points throughout and included Latin translations from well known scholars. Finally, he layered in notes from previous medical students. For the first time, medical scholars were put directly in conversation with one

another (at a time when distance slowed the distribution of information.) This became the basic structure for the textbooks we use today. Justification- this is a good question because it forces students to have a thorough understanding of the structure of Ib Sina’s writings and works. It also requires that students understand the societal impact of this new kind of textbook, and make connections with their own life (proven to enhance learning and promote intrinsic motivation) Medicine (tibb) is the science by which we learn the various states of the human body in health and when not in health, and the means by which health is likely to be lost, and when lost, is likely to be restored. In other words, medicine is the art whereby health is conserved and the art whereby it is restored after being lost. Avicenna diverged from Galen's philosophical view in medicine and rejected some of Galen's pharmaceutical opinions and Galen's views on the physiology of pain, the physiology of pulse, the same nature of the tendons and nerves and separation of the mind and body. Galen dealt with factors of quality, whereas Hippocrates emphasized quantity , assuming that all parts of the body had similar qualities but the relative amounts of qualities made upon the difference in characteristics. For example, Avicenna diverged from Galen's philosophical view in medicine and rejected some of Galen's pharmaceutical opinions and Galen's views on the physiology of pain, the physiology of pulse, the same nature of the tendons and nerves and separation of the mind and body. Although the views of Greek scholars, especially Galen, in The Canon of Medicine have been quoted abundantly, Avicenna revised the knowledge of the ancient scholars through critical thinking and relying on observation and testing, systematized the science of medicine and introduced many ideas and innovations. As such, Europeans considered Avicenna as the most prominent physician of the Islamic Golden Age. Q. Ibn Tufayl makes reference in his writings to a Creator, or Allah, in a way in which the Greco-Romans did not. Why is this? How does this impact scientific findings? A. The Greco-Romans had a polytheistic belief system. They believed in multiple gods, and believed that these gods took an active role in their day to day life. However, these beliefs rarely conflicted with scientific theories

One critique I have of Crash Course is that how it is structured, the episodes blast through hundreds of years of history in big chunks of the world and only make passing references to what else is happening in other places. My experience with students is that they cannot always synthesize the concept of global history this way unless they visually see it laid out side by side. By doing a global recap, you have the opportunity to talk about different ways of slicing and dicing history. It opens itself up to great possibilities for graphics, such as building a global timeline, showing knowledge exchange on maps, or graphing different foci in science. It also allows us to point out how similar so many of the cultures are, which then creates a really interesting question of why the Scientific Revolution happens in Europe and not elsewhere. Finally, it also allows us to explain why we chose to structure the episodes the way we did, choices we made of what to include and what to leave on the cutting room floor. I am always in favor of showing the process of how history is made. It is also may be a way to address some of the negative comments that the first episode received regarding identity politics (although I am also fine not engaging with them). The writer didn’t know how to write this episode, and the content editor didn’t like review episodes, but the producer agreed with me. In particular, he said “Crash Course is VERY interested and adamant about context, especially where history is involved. It's one thing online education can be extremely good at and we've done it in the past. BUT, one thing we must be focused on is why we are talking about the context of what each of these societies were doing. So, if we look at those episodes less as review and more as ‘Macro’ or ‘Context’ or ‘Backing Up’ for specific purposes, then I really like the idea. Also adding in that there must be a reason for having a macro look. So, as Allison said, framing them with the idea of ‘The Scientific Revolution But Why Here’ allows us to back out, look at the overall timeline, break it apart and then put it back together in an episode.” Alas, the episode did not get made. For this assignment, if you choose to accept it, you get to make the missing episode. Your episode should address the state of science globally in 1000 CE. Rules Rules You must submit a printed script (that’s how we do the closed captioning) as well as a video recording (videoing with your phone is fine). Your episode must be 5-10 minutes long, contain a Thought Bubble as a discrete segment, be factually correct, and have some attempts at humor. You do not have to animate it, but you can always be creative and hold up props or illustrations during your talk. Standard rules on plagiarism still apply!

Intermission Intermission Intermission (pp 192-193 of Science & Technology in World History ) Let us step back and briefly consider the state of science and systems of natural knowledge on a world scale at roughly the year 1000 EC. Plainly, no cultural group was without some understanding of the natural world. The point applies to the non-insignificant number of peoples who continued to live by Paleolithic rules and to forage for their food, as well as to tribes of nomadic pastoralists great and small, to villages of simple farmers who followed in the footsteps of their Neolithic ancestors, and to the centers of urban civilization in the Islamic world, classical India, Song China, Mesoamerica, and Peru. What distinguishes the science and scientific cultures of these latter civilizations is that they institutionalized knowledge and patronized the development of science and scientific expertise in order to administer the comparatively huge social, political, and economic entities that constituted their respective complex civilizations. Europe in 1000 offered little of scientific or technological interest to the wider world or to historians looking back on Europe in the early Middle Ages. In the year 1000 CE none of the worldviews held by any of the world’s peoples envisioned the earth other than at the center of their respective universes. Similarly, nowhere except in the Islamic world – and there its status proved increasingly precarious – did savants pursue the intellectual game of disinterested theoretical inquiry into nature uniquely initiated by the ancient Hellenic Greeks. A related but separate pattern pertains to the nature and distribution of technology on a world level at the outset of the second millennium CE. No society lacked technology – the very notion is absurd. “Paleolithic” groups lived by means of appropriate “Paleolithic” technologies. “Neolithic” groups lived by means of appropriate “Neolithic” technologies. And the universally more diverse and complex character of urban civilization depended on a myriad of specialized crafts and trades that kept the machinery of cities and civilizations going. Only in those handful of subject areas where society required patronized specialized knowledge – astrology/astronomy, literacy, numeracy, aspects of engineering, medicine, law, and perhaps priest lore to name the major ones – is it at all meaningful to speak of a limited existence of science and expert knowledge turned to practical ends. Otherwise, the worlds of technology and learned science remained sociologically and institutionally poles apart. The vast bulk of technology did not derive from the world of science and had developed according to sociologically distinct craft traditions. To measure the full historical force of the pattern of hydraulic civilization seen in the Islamic world, in China, in India, pan-India, and in contemporary American civilizations and to fully evaluate their attendant scientific cultures, one most compare these great civilizations with the rise of a secondary civilization in rain-watered Europe where the ecological conditions did not call for any government management or control of the basic agrarian economy. Yet, a train of novelties would transform Europe and bring it onto the world stage with world-transforming effects. WA -- Hippocratic Oath. Traditional essay

You must complete all three parts of the assignment. There is no word count limit for Parts 1 and 2, although for Part 2 keep it in line with the original oath. For part one, create a bulleted list that starts with your identified value in bold , followed by a paragraph of explanation in normal text. There is no special formatting for part 2. For Part 3, you should write a 750 word essay. Turn in all parts as a single document that is clearly labeled with Parts 1, 2, and 3. Your essay in Part 3 should have a central thesis, i.e., an argument that you’re trying to convince the reader of. This argument should relate to the values behind and essential to the Oath. You must highlight your thesis in yellow. Also highlight in yellow the topic sentence of each of your supporting paragraphs. An example of a thesis for this paper would be: “In the Oath, Hippocrates reveals the importance of the Greek gods as a moral cornerstone of Ancient Greece and argues that the physician should never do anything to anger the gods. This remains true today in religious hospitals where euthanasia is prohibited for terminal patients because it goes against religious beliefs.” You can see that there’s a problem with this thesis—Hippocrates doesn’t argue this and there’s no evidence for this position in the Oath’s text. But it is an argument, not just a restatement of the oath. If you are unsure whether you have a thesis or not, please seek help. Often this kind of query can be answered through an email exchange. Your Essay for Part 3 can, and in fact should, be organized as a standard five paragraph essay. It should begin with an introduction, follow with three different pieces of evidence for your thesis (each in its own paragraph), and end with a conclusion. Highlight each piece of evidence in blue. Note that introductory material, analysis, and reflection should have no special formatting. Note that if you have yellow/blue color blindness, please use grayscale highlighting that can show a clear differentiation between your thesis and your supporting evidence. If you’re not clear on how to write a well-organized, five paragraph essay, please seek help from the writing center. If you need this kind of help, please come prepared-- having read and made notes on the reading and what you might want to write about. You are not expected to conduct any additional research for this assignment, but rather to read the oath closely and provide an interpretation that squares with what you’ve learned from class. If you do use any sources (including quotes or ideas from the textbook), please cite them properly in a recognized citation system (e.g, MLA or Chicago style). A citation generator is available at http://www.citationmachine.net . Further information on citation styles is available at https://www.library.cornell.edu/research/citation . Chicago style tends to be the usual citation style for history scholarship, but there are numerous exceptions. Because we are all reading the same Hippocratic Oath, just city it as (Oath). If you need to distinguish between the ancient Oath and the one you created, you can eponymously name your own oath so that your two different citations would be (Hippocratic Oath) for the ancient one and (YOURNAME Oath) for the modern one. For example, mine would be cited as (Marsh Oath). Special note on plagiarism: Every single thing that is not your own original idea should be cited. Please save the document as a .doc, .docx, .rtf, or .txt format. Please no .pages files! If I can’t open the paper, you will get a 0. The document itself should be in 12 point font, with 1 inch margins and double spaced. Assignments are to be uploaded to Blackboard in the appropriate format. There is a specific link in the ‘Assignments’ section of Blackboard for the upload. IMPORTANT: Incorporate Parts 1, 2, and 3 into a single document and call the file

"yourname_oath" where you replace the words yourname with your actual first and last name. For example, my file would be named allisonmarsh_oath. Your name should also be on the top of the first page. WA -- HO Use this link to turn in your writing assignment. Remember no .pdfs or .pages files. Additional thoughts about presentism Additional thoughts about presentism This assignment asks you to do a close reading of a text and to draw conclusions about ancient Greek society based on it. It is very important NOT to confuse our contemporary views with those in the past (often called presentism, and looked down upon by most historians). For example, you may have been shocked to read the the Hippocratic Oath had specific things to say about abortion. It would be wrong to conclude that ancient Greeks were Pro-Life. The first reason is that you would be applying a contemporary label onto a group that didn't think in those particular terms. Also, abortion was legal in much of the ancient Mediterranean (with a few exceptions). Most people did not believe that life began at conception, and most objections to abortion came from men who thought the woman was wrongfully depriving them of potential heirs and property. Remember that I am not asking you to do any outside research for this assignment. But if you want to learn more about this specific topic, follow the link. (You can jump to the sections on contraceptives and abortion.)