The
passages regarding Omens make the assumption that nature is the tool that gods
use to punish mankind. These documents can be classified as science because
they attempted to explain the inexplicable events that had great effect on the
lives of the early humans. These documents are based on the observation of
repeated occurences and attempt to draw parallels
between monumental events and the actions of humans. This cannot be considered
science in the way that we know it now because the authors of these documents
did not form theories and constructs or test hypotheses or models. The fact
that the authors of these documents even made these assumptions indicates that
they are believers in the post hoc, ergo propter hoc
theory - they assumed that, because because a man who
had committed adultery also happened to be sick in the middle of the night,
that the adultery was the cause of the illness.
In
Herodotus's writings, the assumption is that nature is not exclusively under
the power of the gods, but that there are elements of randomocity
and chance involved. Herodotus's document is closer to the science we know
today as he forms a hypothesis and tries through observation to prove it (he
cites the sun's effects on the natives of
Good explanations. May want to include more about what you mean by “science that we know today” in making your comparisons.
In the Amos passage, the assumption is that we are being punished for turning away from the path of God. It is also being assumed that all of these different events are coming from one stimulus. It cannot be classified as science because it is a hypothesis that covers everything that happens and doesn't take into account any inconsistencies. No one ever tested the hypothesis and so it is unlikely that this explanation can prove that God is the stimulus for all of these events. GOOD.
The
1) When humans do something that displeases the Gods, they are punnished. Also, certain events in nature predict the occurence of events in humans lives. Therefore, nature has a direct correlation to human behaviors and provides a way for humans to structure their lives, which lends them a certain amount of security. Good.
2) There isn't any basis for science in this document. No scientific method is used and no inquiry into why these events happen on a natural level are pursued. People have to believe that a pattern exists which will cause these things to happen again in the future. It's based heavily in faith.
3 and 4) There is
observation that these events occur and then people believe that they are
accurate and will occur again in the future. No formal systematic testing of
events takes place. The idea is that if people keep practicing these rituals
and observing events as important for a particular occurence,
then the event will occur and the Gods will be pleased. It reduces their fear
out of the lack of control when the rituals they perform keep them in good
graces.
Good job!
1. Amos: Nature is a tool of god. Good. Used as divine intervention. Also, that natural
"disasters" like lack of rainfall, continue to happen until the
proper omens Not sure if this is
exactly the idea you were looking for. are
given to the God(s).
2. Amos: There isn't much in this document that can be considered as scientfic, rather that nature is controlled by a God, or Gods, and the wrath of which can be seen through nature. But don’t people influence the actions of the Gods?
3. Amos: this document simply goes into the theory, or model, that natural events are simply divine intervention. Also, not only is nature controlled but also controls events that happen in society like overthrowing a ruler.
Feel free not to be stuck only writing question by question, bullet point by bullet point—those are only guidelines for what to talk about. Try to discuss each topic thoroughly other than splitting it up. You cover a lot of good points to justify your decision one way or the other, but never really come to a conclusion as to whether or not these documents are “scientific.”
Herodotus -
While Herodotus does write with scientific premise, his method and logic follow only a loose definition of science. Good, but explain more.
1. Assumptions: The sun holds some power over the
2. He attempts to describe the phenomenon through explainable causes and available evidence. He follows the guidelines of relying on a cause-effect relationship on every occasion, and not only paying attention to the successes. However, he acts upon an unproven premise, that the sun attracts water.
He relies on cause and effect through observing the absence of water in Lybia, to further support his hypothesis. While he does use observation and logic, he uses these in place of actual tests of his theory.
The main problem wih his
processes is that he relies on an unproven assumption. Otherwise, he seems to
rely on logic and cause enad effect to support his
ideas.
How would you then explain the idea that Herodotus refers to the sun as some sort of deity?
The ultimate message that Omens is attempting to get across about the role of nature is that it has either a negative or positive effect on humanity, time, or another part of nature. Thus nature is omnipotent. However, the assumptions made in Omens were made without any logical process. On the other hand, Herodotus takes the more scientific approach or process to observing nature in that he wants to find cause and effect. Again Omens excludes any scientific process and relies solely on observation. But does Omens not resort to cause and effect? Human actions lead to natural phenomenon. Therefore to classify it as scientific would be less accurate than classifying Herodotus as scientific. Herodotus takes the more experimental approach. While he does take a scientific approach, does that necessarily make it science?
Overall, Omens takes a bunch of events and judges them based on the outcome. While Herodotus leaves more rookm for scientific interpretation: "I regard as the sole cause of the phenomenon".
Things that happen right after another are related sometimes and sometimes are not related. If you do something for something to happen then it is. If you do not do something for something to happen that you have no cause for what just happened. ???
-The document written by Amos is clearly unscientific because there is a clear connection between the natural and the supernatural. According to the text, God states that he is responsible for the sending or witholding of the rains or the cleanness of teeth or the waste of gardens. The document also implies that the failure of the humans to "return" to God caused him to respond with natural punishment, such as rain. Or the withholding of rain… This assumption that natural events were sent from the supernatural realm as responses to human behavior eliminates the need for investigation or the scientific method, and classifies this document as unscientific. Good summary of Amos… Would you consider cause and effect relationships as a scientific process.
-The excerpt from the
BONUS Question - We believe the bonus excerpt is
unscientific because the scientific method cannot be applied, as the events
cannot be duplicated or tested. Horoscopes, as this appears to be, are held to
the same standard of accuracy as the early polytheistic beliefs (they need only
be correct or close a few times before people read them religiously). As
horoscopes cannot be tested or quantified, they cannot be classified as
scientific. Good in bringing in the concept of duplicating
experiments and restesting ideas.
Overall pretty good, but you need to provide a better understanding of what “science” is.
1. Nature is predictable; they follow the logical fallacy of post hoc, ergo propter hoc; things happen for a reason. Good.
2. They are exploring cause and effect, the example
of the wind not affecting other rivers as it effects
the
Herodotus considers the theories of others and uses
logic to disprove them, this is part of science. The observations presented in
this text are scientific to the extent that in today's society, we can prove
and disprove what has been recorded. They are an attempt to order nature.
You have a good basis for both of the documents, but you need to explain more—explore these ideas to a greater extent.
1.) Amos: Not Scientific
Answer:
Assumptions about nature:
One of the characteristics of greek scientific thinking they began to remove gods as the controlers of natural events. Not necessarily relevant to this document however… Clearly, in this passage we can see a great usage of the world Lord and the affects of a higher power on agriculture and war. The passage states, "I would send rain upon one city and send no rain upon another city; one field would be rained upon and the feild upon which it did not rain withered..." This passage also reflects unsciencfic process because no controls or futher experimental observations can be conducted. You have a good start, but need to explain further what you mean.
2) Herodotus: Scientific
Answer:
Here the method of investigation goes beyond blind flowing a higher power. In contrast to the Amos text this text reflects a seperation from the gods as being provider of natural events. This passage reflects assumptions of natural processes are independent of the role of a god. Although no controled experiments are preformed the role of observation proves scientific in its thoughts and desire for further information. Does separation from the influence of the gods necessarily mean that a process is scientific? Again, good start, but explain more.
Group A
Of the two documents, the
Mr. Nicols Early Greek Texts
In the Omens text, the writers try to express that unexplained natural phemenona is followed by, but does not necessarily cause natural consequences. The Omens texts appear to be attempts at showing scientific logic. The Omens are based on observations, rather than simply explaining consequences through religion. The assumptions made are that certain natural events, like earthquakes and thunder, will most likely be followed by other events, like: "the king's land will revolt from him". The Greeks, however, appear to attempt to connect acts of nature with other events that might not necessarially be otherwise associated. The Omens documents cannot thoroughly be classified as science because they do not provide enough empirical evidence to prove the theories. However, the documents are more scientific than other ancient documents in that the theories attempt to disassociate themselves from religion in an attempt to describe nature. It is important to note that the Greeks include loosely constructed cause and effect data in their reports. Good explanation!
Herodotus:
The Herodotus text is more analytical than the Omens
text. The text suggests that the
Between the two texts Amos and
Amos, we believe is not scientific, because it assumes that divine power controls natural events but assume causation between human actions and god's response without giving supporting evidence. It's anecdotal, and does not speak for what happens 99% of the time.
The horescope is
unscientific, because it makes assumptions based on untested and strains of thinking.
It also assumes unproved divine forces are involved in your fate. Again, there
is no testing. It will only seem like you have more money, because you spent so
much on the holiday season the month before.
Good bringing up the idea of testability, but please—explain more.
Part A
1. Amos- not scientific. biblical description about the Israelites regarding their inability to give into God when natural disasters and other various problems came upon them. there is not mention of "science", instead all the events mentioned are explained as being done by the divine.
2.
In these, you recap what the document was talking about, but do not give a full explanation for whether or not they are scientific. Go into more depth.
Part B
3. Omens- not scientific. this excerpt from various Mesopotamian sources explains that natural disasters are the product of human ill-doing. ex- when the king is sick it is because he has slept with another man's wife.
4. Herodotus- scientific. this passage concerns the nile river and inquires about the change in water levels. it mentions three explanations for this phenonemon give by the Greeks- all three do not mention the gods or divine intervention.
1. The first two passages (Amos and Omens) make
assumptions that natural events, whether disasterous
or not, are the cause of divine intervention. They assume that natural disasters
such as famine, flood, thunder, earthquakes, and illness are the products of
human ill-doing. An example of this can be found in Omens text which states
that "if his (the king's) illness keeps attaacking
him in the middle of the night, he has had sexual intercourse with another
man's wife". It is thus using human vices as an explanation for bad things
happening. In contrast to this, the latter passages of Herodotus and the
Hippocratic school provide a more scientific
explanation for natural phenomenon. An example of this can be found in the
quote from the early Greek cosmotologist Herodotus
when he states three different reasons provided by the Greeks as to why the
2. The last two documents are far more scientific than the first two provided, but still lack scientific reasoning and experimentation to fully answer the questions at hand. They are still far more reliable and logical because they manage to exclude any mention of the divine and instead base their arguments on human reasoning. But is it?
3. The role of observation is present in all of these
documents, but it is more credible in the last two because their observation
lacks any religious affiliation. However, all four cases lack the testing of a hypotheses and their theories are void of any real
experimentation.
You seem to have a basic understanding of what the documents are discussing, but you do not provide much explanation outside of whether or not the document has religious affiliation for your reasoning. Please try to explain more.
1.The assumptions that are made are that things that occur in nature happen as a result of what people did. It also assumes that all things have to happen for a reason.
2.They may be classified as science to the extent that they observe natural phenomena and believe they can predict rational outcomes. Good start.
3. The role of a scientific model in these texts is to observe natural phenomena and draw conclusions without testing them.
4. The statement "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" is a scientific fallacy because it is
impossible to test if a significant event would have happened without the
so-called omen.
Which text are you referring to here? Way too general. Needs more depth and detail about the documents.
1. In "Omens" it is assumed that there is validity in portents. A causal relationship is assumed to exist between events which have no such directly observable relationship, but are similarly located in time. An example would be that thunder is believed to be an indicator for the market. Not necessarily so… The way you make it seem is if directly implies instantaneously. You could clear up your argument by explaining a little more…
2. The two documents display differing degrees of scientific process. In "Omens," causilty is primarily decribed by proximity and indication, while in Herodotus's writing, he attemps to describe direct causes. One event doesn't mysteriously cause another to 'pop up'. Good start, but again, need more explanation. Clarify your use of “direct.”
3.
4. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc is heavily visible in the former, but not so much the latter.
nicols is the god of hems Best response yet!