Timeline for In truth, only atoms and the void
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2013 at 16:46 | comment | added | anna v | @Zeynel Sorry, I do not read his blog so cannot interpret him. Why can you not ask him? | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 14:42 | comment | added | Zeynel | @annav do you think you can add an answer with your interpretation of what Sean Carroll means by including this as his motto on his blog? | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 13:26 | comment | added | anna v | @MichaelBrown The theory was the science of its time, so it was scientific, though I agree that one should not overaly modern on ancient. If you read on Demokritos' world view his insights were amazing for the times he lived. He postulated that the milky way was stars far away, for example, and that other worlds existed. He gave shapes to the atoms that made them stick together etc. | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 12:52 | comment | added | Zeynel | Yes, it seems Democritus: stanford.edu/~jsabol/sophia/democritus.html. Is this so well known a quote that he uses it without attribution? | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 12:48 | history | edited | Mark Eichenlaub | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 9 characters in body
|
| Oct 13, 2013 at 12:44 | comment | added | Michael | Trying to literally map this expression to modern physics is the same kind of error made by religious fundamentalists, though going in the opposite direction: attempting to read modern scientific meaning (correct or not) into an ancient non-scientific text, an exercise which does justice to neither the science nor the text when read in its original context. | |
| Oct 13, 2013 at 12:28 | history | answered | Mark Eichenlaub | CC BY-SA 3.0 |