Why are Western civs so seldomly scientific?

[Siptah]

Really, from the beginning of history to 1500, not so much. Greek science was based almost entirely on Babylonian (and to a lesser extent Egyptian) science (though the Greeks made some important contributions in the field of mathematics). Roman science was based almost entirely on Greek science. That being said, the Romans and their successors were marvelous engineers; the Middle Ages saw a boom of practically applied science--but that perhaps better reflects industrial bonuses than science bonuses.

I find such discussions very confusing. Are we talking about science in civ‘s understanding or real world?

In the real world, the Greeks contributed greatly to Philosophy, Astronomy, and Mathematics - and this (and its various disciplines) is pretty much the extent sciences had before the 800s (well, maybe geography as well). I don‘t see any contemporary or later civ in the time frame 500 BCE - 800 CE to be at a similar level in contribution to science. Especially as several technologically advanced societies seemingly did not care for science at all in pre-modern times (e.g., in East Asia). I‘m sure we both read some Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek texts that deal with science or philosophy and noted the difference in analytical precision and thought between these. Is the ancient influence on Greek thinkers often ignored in the west? Sure! Is this enough to marginalize how much changed with them? For sure not.

 

[Alexander's Hetaroi]

I find such discussions very confusing. Are we talking about science in civ‘s understanding or real world?

In the real world, the Greeks contributed greatly to Philosophy, Astronomy, and Mathematics - and this (and its various disciplines) is pretty much the extent sciences had before the 800s (well, maybe geography as well). I don‘t see any contemporary or later civ in the time frame 500 BCE - 800 CE to be at a similar level in contribution to science. Especially as several technologically advanced societies seemingly did not care for science at all in pre-modern times (e.g., in East Asia). I‘m sure we both read some Egyptian, Babylonian and Greek texts that deal with science or philosophy and noted the difference in analytical precision and thought between these. Is the ancient influence on Greek thinkers often ignored in the west? Sure! Is this enough to marginalize how much changed with them? For sure not.

Philosophy in Civ games, at least recently, fall under "culture". But you are right that in ancient times any sort of field of education was categorized under "science". If I could go back in time, I would have told Sid to call it "knowledge".

 

[Quintillus]

May I point out that Germany in civ 3 was originally planned as expansive/commercial? And was changed to scientific because a *lot* of people (including me) made polls and the designers either had the same idea or actually listened to the civfanatics audience?

You may, although now it makes me curious if there's a list of what the "originally planned" traits were, or what they were in beta. Could be interesting to see. I can see the argument for commercial for Germany with the Hanseatic history and number of successful modern corporations.

 

[Arent11]

You may, although now it makes me curious if there's a list of what the "originally planned" traits were, or what they were in beta. Could be interesting to see. I can see the argument for commercial for Germany with the Hanseatic history and number of successful modern corporations.

Yes, I think that was the intention. Commercial for the Hanseatic league. The expansionist I can't explain at all.

I just thought that's boring & some other guy & myself made 2 polls.

If I remember correctly, I think the most votes were for militaristic industrial. So they actually went with the second most popular (militarist/scientific). I think industrial/scientific also got a lot of votes.

 

[Leyrann]

Yes, I think that was the intention. Commercial for the Hanseatic league. The expansionist I can't explain at all.

I can explain that very well, looking at 19th and 20th century Germany.

 

[Arent11]

I can explain that very well, looking at 19th and 20th century Germany.

The expansionist advantage was scouts and better goody huts. The name is actually a bit misleading, it should be more like ~"explorative".

 

[Zaarin]

In the real world, the Greeks contributed greatly to Philosophy, Astronomy, and Mathematics

The Greeks contributed nothing to astronomy but personal horoscopes (Babylonians had horoscopes but only for states); every jot and tittle of Greek astronomy was Babylonian--indeed, after the Babylonians virtually nothing was added to the field of astronomy until the invention of the telescope. (Though strictly speaking the greatest tour de force of early Renaissance astronomy, Tycho Brahe, did not use a telescope--but he did postdate the telescope. His fundamental ideas may have been wrong, but his methodology was breathtakingly impeccable.)

 

[Arent11]

The Greeks contributed nothing to astronomy but personal horoscopes (Babylonians had horoscopes but only for states); every jot and tittle of Greek astronomy was Babylonian--indeed, after the Babylonians virtually nothing was added to the field of astronomy until the invention of the telescope. (Though strictly speaking the greatest tour de force of early Renaissance astronomy, Tycho Brahe, did not use a telescope--but he did postdate the telescope. His fundamental ideas may have been wrong, but his methodology was breathtakingly impeccable.)

Didn't one Greek/Eratosthenes calculate the circumference of the earth?

 

[Zaarin]

Didn't one Greek/Eratosthenes calculate the circumference of the earth?

Yes, with remarkable precision; that was part of what I was referring to when I said the Greeks made important contributions to mathematics.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Greeks contributed nothing to astronomy but personal horoscopes (Babylonians had horoscopes but only for states); every jot and tittle of Greek astronomy was Babylonian--indeed, after the Babylonians virtually nothing was added to the field of astronomy until the invention of the telescope. (Though strictly speaking the greatest tour de force of early Renaissance astronomy, Tycho Brahe, did not use a telescope--but he did postdate the telescope. His fundamental ideas may have been wrong, but his methodology was breathtakingly impeccable.)

People have been star-gazing since the Neolithic and earlier, and making calendars of some kind almost as long.

There are such similarities between North American native and Asian/Siberian/European identifications of constellations (rock art, etc) that the Great Bear or Wain (Big Dipper) constellation was identified by all of them as far back as 15,000 BCE.

The Gobekli Tepe monuments have marking on the that seem to relate to the solstices of the time, so it may be the oldest 'permanent' astronomical calendar known.

At Nabta Playas in the Egyptian desert are the remains of a stone circle, a 'Stonehenge' like calendar (although much smaller than Stonehenge) dating to 4900 - 6000 BCE.

Sumerian/Babylonian calendrical/astrological writings date back to the earliest writing - 3000 BCE.

Finally, although everybody in philosophy from Thales on wrote about astronomy/astrology in Greece, Eudoxus wrote a book about 350 BCE that 'translated' the Mesopotamian constellation names and positions in Greek terms. His work is now lost, but was referred to extensively by every Greek writer on the subjects, so they weren't even borrowing by chance, it was deliberate and well-known.

 

[Zaarin]

the Great Bear or Wain (Big Dipper) constellation was identified by all of them as far back as 15,000 BCE.

It is interesting that Ursa Major, Orion, and the Pleiades are almost universal in their interpretation everywhere they're visible (as a bear or chariot, a warrior, and seven closely associated figures respectively). The last is especially interesting because even in dark skies you need good eyesight to spot seven stars in the Pleiades; the Greeks used it as a vision test. (I love archeoastronomy. One of my favorite tidbits is that the Orion Nebula seems to have flared up a couple hundred years ago because no one talks about it until the 18th century--even astronomers who observed cloudy patches in the sky like the Andromeda Galaxy, Praesepe, and Omega Centauri.)

 

[Leyrann]

indeed, after the Babylonians virtually nothing was added to the field of astronomy until the invention of the telescope.

Copernicus and his heliocentric model predate the invention of the telescope.

 

[Zaarin]

Copernicus and his heliocentric model predate the invention of the telescope.

I did say virtually nothing. The Arabs made some useful catalogues (which is why so many star names are in Arabic); the Chinese made observations of several supernovae. You are correct about Copernicus, though he only predated Galileo by a generation or two. It is a pity that Copernicus, not Galileo, was not at the center of the heliocentric movement; as a Catholic canon and as a generally less unpleasant person he would have stirred up less controversy. (Still, Copernicus published his findings just a few years before 1500--I want to say 1493?--so I don't really take that as much of a challenge to my original statement. )

 

[Leyrann]

I did say virtually nothing. The Arabs made some useful catalogues (which is why so many star names are in Arabic); the Chinese made observations of several supernovae. You are correct about Copernicus, though he only predated Galileo by a generation or two. It is a pity that Copernicus, not Galileo, was not at the center of the heliocentric movement; as a Catholic canon and as a generally less unpleasant person he would have stirred up less controversy. (Still, Copernicus published his findings just a few years before 1500--I want to say 1493?--so I don't really take that as much of a challenge to my original statement. )

Copernicus indeed published his findings late in the 15th century.

The telescope, however, was only invented more than a fully century after, in the early 17th century.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Copernicus indeed published his findings late in the 15th century.

The telescope, however, was only invented more than a fully century after, in the early 17th century.

Small correction: Copernicus did not, as far as is known, publish his 'heliocentric' theory until 1513 - 1514 in his "Little Commentaries" (Commentariolus), and did not complete the manuscript to his Great Work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) until around 1532, but it was not published until just before his death in 1543.

 

[GeneralZIft]

Why? They spent the first couple thousand years of recorded history just killing each other and exploiting others.
They only became scientific after they stole the technological advancements of others and colonised /enslaved their way to world superpowers. Although maybe my History is wrong

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Why? They spent the first couple thousand years of recorded history just killing each other and exploiting others.
They only became scientific after they stole the technological advancements of others and colonised /enslaved their way to world superpowers. Although maybe my History is wrong

"killing each other and exploiting others" is a pretty good recap of all of human history if you're trying to stick to six words or less.

 

[Leyrann]

Small correction: Copernicus did not, as far as is known, publish his 'heliocentric' theory until 1513 - 1514 in his "Little Commentaries" (Commentariolus), and did not complete the manuscript to his Great Work, De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) until around 1532, but it was not published until just before his death in 1543.

Whoops. My bad.

Still, there will have been very few, if any, people who read his work at the time of publishing that were still alive to hear about the first telescope being invented.

Why? They spent the first couple thousand years of recorded history just killing each other and exploiting others.
They only became scientific after they stole the technological advancements of others and colonised /enslaved their way to world superpowers. Although maybe my History is wrong

Your history is indeed wrong. To the best of my knowledge, European powers did not "steal" more technological advancements than non-European powers, and their status as world superpowers (through technological advancements and trade) is what enabled them to mass colonize and enslave, not the other way around.

And frankly, outside of the magnitude of those actions (enabled by their globe-spanning power), it's not as if there's anything unusual about them. Colonization and enslavement are both extremely popular activities across all of human history.

(edit: I feel kinda bad about editing this reply in in order to avoid multi-posting and then noticing there's two likes on my post already that were put there exclusively for the first response)

 

[Zaarin]

Whoops. My bad.

Still, there will have been very few, if any, people who read his work at the time of publishing that were still alive to hear about the first telescope being invented.

While fair, very few did read his work at the time of publishing. His theories really only became well known in the wake of the controversies stirred by Galileo and Kepler (who refined his work, ironically with Tycho Brahe's meticulous data).

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

While fair, very few did read his work at the time of publishing. His theories really only became well known in the wake of the controversies stirred by Galileo and Kepler (who refined his work, ironically with Tycho Brahe's meticulous data).

In fact, when a preliminary version of Copernicus' theory was explained to Pope Clement VII around 1533, he was quite pleased with it and certainly saw nothing heretical or controversial in it.

Fun Fact: the first 'attacks' against the Copernican Theory were not from the established church, but from Protestants right after his death: ". . . a thing as absurd . . . as that Sarmatian (Polish) astronomer who moves the earth and stops the sun . . ." (Melanchthon) - but by the 1550s Protestant as well as other astronomers and astrologers were using astronomical tables based on Copernicus' work because they were far more accurate than any other versions.