(For the first assignment in the General History of Science—“Briefly describe the basic features of Greek cosmology and astronomy”) A few words before I’ve even graded the assignment~

16,034 characters2009.10.27

Before the homework is graded, let me say a few words~

The third question on this assignment, namely “briefly describe the basic features of Greek cosmology and astronomy,” was set by me and will also be graded by me. Perhaps because the topic seemed difficult, or because it was listed last, in any case comparatively the fewest students chose my topic. I only received 36 submissions, which just so happens to make it possible for me to offer a bit of special kill-you-while-serving-you (service)~ That is to say, in addition to learning their scores, everyone will also know exactly why they were inevitably killed by the TA~~ I will explain the main grading points and sources of lost points on the board, and for each paper I will also try to attach a list of lost points and brief comments. Please look forward to it.

I had originally planned to set the question as “Discuss the Greek scientific ‘discovery of nature’,” because Wu Lao-shi only mentioned this point briefly in class without developing it in depth, and when I asked some classmates afterward they also said they were not clear about it. So I wanted to take the opportunity to let everyone look up some literature, survey ancient Greek natural philosophy, sort out the meaning of it all, and read Wu Lao-shi’s article “The Discovery of Nature” (http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_51fdc06201009ojq.html), Lloyd’s Early Greek Science, as well as related works in philosophy and the history of philosophy for reference. The key point is that “the discovery of nature,” apart from standing opposed to “the gods” or opposed to “the artificial,” in Wu Lao-shi’s words means “the opening up of a domain of immanence.” To put “immanence” in simple terms, it means explaining a thing by the principles internal to the thing itself (whereas gods, makers, and so on are principles outside the thing).

But later, when I saw the questions set by the other two TAs, I felt that this topic was relatively (on the surface) too difficult. If as a result hardly anyone chose my topic, then that would be unfair to the other two TAs, so before Wu Lao-shi I quickly revised the question to “Using Plato as an example, briefly describe the characteristics of ancient Greek cosmology and astronomy.” The current question is Wu Lao-shi’s revised version.

I added “using Plato as an example” out of consideration for reducing ambiguity and narrowing the scope; Wu Lao-shi removed “using Plato as an example” and added “basic,” but in fact it is pretty much the same. If one is to discuss “basic features,” one still has to seize typical cases. And typical cases are nothing other than those two pillars, Plato and Aristotle. If you talk for half a day and are still talking about the cosmology of the Milesian school, then you are not getting to the point.

As for “Greek…,” does that include the Hellenistic period? Maybe you could even ask whether it includes the Mycenaean period. Strict periodization is not what I require; the key is to seize the typical features. If something in the Ptolemaic system reflects Greek characteristics, then it can be brought in; if it reflects Eastern characteristics, then it should not be brought in. For example, if you say that the Ptolemaic system is based on precise calculation, and therefore precise calculation is a Greek characteristic, then that is of course wrong. Of course, you can bring in such cases to illustrate the multiplicity and historicity of Greek science, but not to illustrate its “basic features.” Even Copernicus and even modern astronomy still inherit Greek characteristics, and that can be brought in as well. As for what counts as the most authentic, original Greek characteristics, then of course one still has to look for models among the classic figures of the classical age. So all of this is very clear; there is nothing vague or ambiguous about it.

As for “cosmology” and “astronomy,” many people on the board also asked whether they should be written together or separately. This is another bad omen. I roughly glanced through the submitted homework, and indeed some people dealt with them in two short separate pieces, while others mixed them together from beginning to end. Both are deadly… Obviously, since I set a homework question, I am of course asking for one essay—how can you split it into two and hand it in? On the other hand, since I clearly wrote A and B, rather than simply saying “astronomy” or “cosmology,” how can they be completely mixed together? At the very least, one should make a conceptual distinction and then put them together, right? Of course, perhaps some students have doubts about this TA’s topic, feeling that my grammar or logic or concepts are problematic. Then of course you are perfectly free not to choose my question; since you chose it and then wrote it like that, it can only count as suicide…

To put it simply, cosmology is discourse on the structure and origin of the universe as a whole, while astronomy is the explanation or prediction of concrete celestial phenomena; these are things at two different levels, and I believe most students can figure that out. And in Greece, the two were combined with one another; that too is obviously the case. The key point is that this very combination itself is a major “basic feature.” In early Greece, they had not yet been combined very much; the concentric-sphere model of Eudoxus counts as a sign of combination, and later their combination became increasingly close, to the point that modern astronomy seems already to have swallowed cosmology whole (does the Big Bang theory count as astronomy?). In other civilizations, such as Babylon or China, astronomy and cosmology were not combined in this way. For example, in China cosmology was for a long time “round heaven and square earth,” and one did not care whether eclipses were caused by shadows or by some other thing; one could predict celestial phenomena using interpolation calculations and still achieve a fairly accurate degree of success (its precision of course does not compare with the Ptolemaic system, though it was probably much higher than Plato’s). Comparing the two sides, one sees that the combination of cosmology and astronomy is by no means a matter of course, but rather one of the Greek hallmarks.

The so-called combination of cosmology and astronomy simply means that one can use one’s cosmological model to do astronomical work. For example, the Chinese cosmology of “round heaven and square earth” cannot provide any useful guidance for astronomical work based on interpolation, whereas the epicycle-deferent model can be directly used to predict astronomical phenomena. But after all, they are still two layers of things. Even after making the distinction, I still recommend discussing the features separately; otherwise you are very likely to miss some important issues.

There is another issue in reading the question that may be even more serious, namely that I am asking you to write about “features”—in other words, not “content,” and even less “history.” Ideally, of course, you should take “features” as your thread and use the relevant “content” and “history” as supporting evidence. At the very least, you should highlight the “features” clearly. From my rough scan of the papers, I found that a few students were simply introducing the content of Greek astronomy—how the concentric-sphere model explains retrograde motion and so on—or talking about the history of Greek cosmology, from Thales, Anaximander, to Plato and Aristotle and so on. The whole thing had the air of helping Wu Lao-shi write a textbook on the history of science, except that I never saw where the prominently marked “features” were. Please, those students, hurry up and prepare your tea tables…

Still on the issue of reading the question: besides the title itself, below there is also a list of several “requirements.” Among them, item 1 says 1,000–3,000 characters, 1–2 pages of A4 paper. From the homework I received, I of course did not count the characters, but there were quite a few that were 3 pages long, and the most was 4 pages. This is violating the assignment requirements in the most obvious and brazen way, and exceeding them by as much as 50% to 100%; if I did not deduct points, I would be letting my conscience and heaven and earth down. Of course, on this point I will still consider it case by case; probably I will deduct about 1 point. But if your writing is ugly to begin with, and then you make it long-winded and foul-smelling besides, deliberately trying to disturb the TA’s mood, then I will have to deduct more points as appropriate~

The second item makes clear that it must be “based on literature reading, with proper citation of references (online references permitted), and no plagiarism or copying of any kind (once discovered, it will be marked zero).” First, this means there must be literature reading—do not think you can get by on classroom notes alone. Although online sources are permitted, those students who only provided a short webpage as reference material should also prepare their tea tables.

It requires proper citation of references, not proper formatting of the whole paper. Some students even added abstracts and keywords in a rather put-on fashion, though this is actually unnecessary. In particular, in Chinese academia many ways of writing abstracts and keywords are simply nonstandard, and Wu Lao-shi often complains to us about this. Not adding an abstract or keywords is no problem, but if you do add them, I will also take a careful look. If they are not fluent, correct, good, or standardized, points will also be deducted. As for citation, since proper citation is emphasized, one should also put some heart into it. Although Chinese academia still does not have any uniform standard in this respect, that does not mean there are no standards; rather, each has its own standard. Just imitate any decent book or journal you can find, and that will do. But I found that many students still did things haphazardly; some even simply noted down the title of the book and were done with it. That of course also has to lose points.

As for plagiarism and copying, I believe no further explanation is needed. This TA will not be any softer than Wu Lao-shi. Of course, under ordinary circumstances I am too lazy to check everything everywhere, but if you copy too obviously, so that it can be seen without even checking, then I still need to live up to my conscience and heaven and earth. Please prepare a bowl cabinet.

As for the third requirement: “hand it in in class, late papers will not be accepted, do not say I did not warn you.” As above, this TA will not be any softer than Wu Lao-shi. Even if you pass the other two TAs and slip past Wu Lao-shi’s eyes, you still will not get past me. I must firmly defend and carry forward Wu Lao-shi’s green-faced, fanged image~

That finishes the question-reading part; let me now say a few words about the key content points. If I have the leisure and the time, perhaps at some point I will personally write a homework paper, but for now I will briefly point out some major items here. In fact, it is not hard to answer them all, because the various features are all interconnected; when you mention any one feature, you can bring out the others as well. Also, from time to time, if you think of modern science and ancient Eastern science and compare them, it will be easier to discover what is distinctive about Greece.

Let us begin with the features of cosmology. First of all, one must mention the so-called “two-sphere model.” Once you think of these four characters, you can already let half a stone fall to the ground, because these four characters are basically enough to bring out all the features.

The so-called “two, sphere, model”: first, “two.” In the eyes of the Greeks, heaven and earth are sharply divided. The realm above the moon and the realm below the moon are fundamentally different: up in heaven there is nobility, perfection, changelessness, sanctity, purity; on earth there is baseness, defect, change, the human world, mixture… Anyway, once you make this division, you can say many smaller features, and then you can also think of the fact that Greek space is not homogeneous and isotropic, but heterogeneous and directional.

Second, “sphere.” That brings in the Greeks’ preference for the sphere and circular motion. This can be discussed together with the noble, perfect, changeless, and so on qualities mentioned above. Then there is another extremely important key point: the entire universe is finite and closed. Unlike Newton’s universe, which is infinite and open—“from closed world to open universe” is a very important transformation, and it is precisely the title of a famous book by our founding ancestor of the history of scientific thought, the student Koyré. I believe Wu Lao-shi will still mention this when he talks about the Scientific Revolution.

Finally, “model.” This first connects to the combination of cosmology and astronomy, namely explaining astronomical phenomena through an established cosmological model. No one says that round heaven and square earth is also a kind of model, but at the same time one can think of the basic feature of Greek astronomy as “mathematical astronomy,” which I will discuss shortly. Another thing one can think of is that the Greeks believed the universe to be “intelligible,” something that human wisdom could fathom, whereas Eastern people may more often believe that heaven is fickle and unpredictable, or supremely authoritative and beyond grasp, and so on. Of course this is not just a matter of Greek cosmology or astronomy, but of Greek science—or rather, of the most basic features of science itself. Of course, you can also mention in passing the retreat of myth and so on, but in fact Greek cosmology still remained divine in character. The key is not that gods were driven out, but that—as Plato says at the end of the Timaeus—what they emphasized was that this god is “intelligible.”

Besides these, one can also mention holism, organicism, teleology, and so on. Mentioning these can all be given extra points as appropriate; of course, if they are said in a way that is too verbose or too trivial, that is not good either. We shall see.

As for astronomy, do not by any means give me a giant popularization of the concrete content of Greek astronomy. What I want to see are the “features”—to put it in two words: first, “mathematical astronomy”; second, “planetary astronomy.” The “mathematical aspect” can also be placed together with cosmology or discussed as a whole. Besides the aspects mentioned above, one should note that it relies especially on geometry, unlike Babylon or China, which rely on arithmetic. If you do not take the Hellenistic period into account, you can also mention that Greek astronomy was mainly qualitative explanation, not the pursuit of precise calculation.

As for “planetary astronomy,” that is an extremely important phrase. Wu Lao-shi also mentioned it in class, and it should also be mentioned in any reliable reference book. The subtitle of Kuhn’s The Copernican Revolution even says “Planetary Astronomy.” One must absolutely not turn a blind eye to it. Once you say “planetary,” you can again bring in many things. That is to say, what the Greeks paid attention to was only “planets,” and not calendars, solar terms, or other things related to production and politics (and thus one can connect this with the Greeks’ free spirit of pure knowledge-seeking); nor did they pay attention to (or rather, they ignored) comets, meteors, novae, and the like. Then one can again connect this to the features of their cosmology, and speak again of “saving the phenomena” and so on.

Finally, besides the substantive content, one can also mention the social characteristics of Greek astronomy, for example that it was popular rather than official (it was only with Ptolemy that it acquired some official background), that it was aristocrats with too much free time amusing themselves, that it was free and open (compared with Chinese imperial monopoly), that it remained faintly entangled with astrology, and so on.

Let me stop here for now. I wonder whether everyone has prepared enough tea tables and bowl cabinets~~~. But of course, please do not panic. The scores for the assignment will eventually be adjusted together so that they are roughly the same under the three TAs. Given that my question is more difficult, I will also try to give everyone a relatively higher score, ensuring that, in terms of the score alone, students who chose my question will not inevitably be more tragic than the others.

Of course, at that time, students who are satisfied or dissatisfied with my grading may wish to post their papers for everyone to take a look at; I can then analyze the gains and losses one by one for everyone’s brick-throwing pleasure. If, in the end, the reasons for my deductions fail to convince, I will of course revise the grading. Let us do things the Greek way~

October 27, 2009