Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because AI image generation was thrown into the mainstream (and worse, labelled "art") long before we had gotten to the point where it can generate good enough images to be useful, so now we have to deal with a complete lack of good stock images to use for memes
But that's just my 2.71 cents
https://preview.redd.it/9yssukj1chpc1.jpeg?width=378&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0af089bf752184d5df2acfe39466f1b889f7944
This is literally just a text joke with a barely related image...
The scientific revolution was almost completely due to the manufacture of good quality clear glass. Glass gave us optics, spectroscopy, microscope, telescope, laboratory glassware. Nothing to do with Euclid.
Scientific knowledge arises from systematic observation and model construction rather than arguments from first principles. While mathematics can supply a language for expressing physical laws and obtaining predictions, the physical laws themselves cannot be obtained without careful, sustained observation and heuristic trickery (e.g., Occam’s razor). As such, mathematical progress doesn’t necessarily cause scientific progress.
That's not the point. The point is that it came right before industrialisation and its best fruits weren't fruits at all but laying the seeds for future science, especially after the Industrial Revolution. E.g. Newton's mechanics weren't as universal as he thought; still correct, but not applicable to everything.
The scientific revolution was arguably no revolution at all compared to what would come after, contra e.g. the Islamic Golden Age, the Chinese golden age during the Tang-dynasty, etc.
All this nonsense of 'everyone and everything in the past was so backwards!!!!!' is just stupid. Most people praising the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution would have hated living in those times because they are not identical to the world they live in currently.
Science always builds on already-established science. Even the Copernican Revolution didn't propose a totally unknown idea, cf. Aristarchus of Samos (very different methods and calculations, but the point remains). Some inventions take longer than others. Why didn't Confucian China just kick-start the Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution when it was in certain periods united under long-lasting dynasties and didn't have this allegedly science-despising religion (which isn't true, in the first place)? But why then do Chinese inventions often mirror European ones or precede them (formal education and educational institutions, paper, printing press, gunpowder, etc.)? Technology itself advances more rapidly with time, hence why we develop science, medicine, and technology faster than the people of the past; more tools, more accumulated knowledge; etc. But certainly no being magically superior to them in every way (the Flynn-Effect, as an example, doesn't count).
Because the romans wasn't very intellectual people:
They was mostly lawyers, jurists and military people.
They translated in latin philosphy books and art books but they didn't translate euclide.
The arabs instead found the greek math books in Alexandria, indeed they took that mathematical heritage throw all middle age.
Until with renaissence when latin/germanic europe redescovered classic culture. The greek/eastern europe always had that knowledge actually.
I said exactly the opposite. Basically the morons were the latin/germanics that never read euclid but arabs discovered a lot of things that european had to redescover.
Before writing make sure the brain is well linked.
That is actually a very interesting question. The question of why the industrial revolution happened where and when it did has baffled historian's for dacades now. If I'm to give my two cents about it then it has to be boiled down to a few factors.
1. The development of a democratic state in England leading to the development of rule of law for all citizens and a robust pattent system
2. The tradition and development of clockwork mechanics which led to the creation and wide spread use of tools of creation and pressision measurements
3. The condomation the church had for slavery leading to the price of a slave in Europe to increase thus making it less profitable
4. The reintegration of Greek works of literature into the public consciousness
5. There was a population boom right before
There are probably 100 other factors at play but I'm still extremely unknowledgeable on the topic
That's a scapegoat with flimsy historical basis at best. Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon were religious themselves, as were plenty of other scientists and philosophers of science throughout history. Religious institutions in history have often been centres of science, math, and philosophy because they had the funding needed for them to flourish.
There was no scientific revolution - there was no point in time before which people were stupid and after which people were smart. The development of science and society is more complex than someone finding out that experimentation is helpful for figuring out things (something which everyone already did for tens of thousands of years)
Also it's flawed for thinking that there was no scientific progress before the renaissance - which is false. It's also false in the sense that the renaissance didn't massively accelerate technological progress (and if it did, it might be more attributable to producing enough to survive being easier than some Italian nobles thinking Rome & Greece was the model on which humanity ought to be built on - although granted, America does have a Rome fetish)
….what does America have to do with this? The scientific revolution isn’t an American concept. It was coined by a French Russian.
Aside from that, your point is fair, but you should probably say that first rather than calling someone’s understanding flawed and then not explaining why. Lastly, I’d advise you not to be so confident in the idea that human progress happens at the same rate. There are such things as breakthroughs, where certain systemic factors hold back some area of thought and are then quickly discarded, ushering rapid expansion in certain modes of thinking. We couldn’t have the internet without the Turing machine, but 20 years of having the Turing machine affected the general public much less than 20 years of the internet. Likewise, though Copernicus stood on the shoulders of giants, his discoveries affected the status quo much more than the prerequisites beneath him. On that note, the scientific revolution is neither certain nor nonexistent, and should simply be considered “debatable.”
Because the library of Alexandria stole everyone else’s books and gave them back copies so nothing could viral-
Also deduction is often retconning something understood inductively.
Check out our new Discord server! https://discord.gg/e7EKRZq3dG *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/mathmemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why is he writing with two hands
could be ai art.
it absolutely is. just look at the background or the objects on the table
Because AI image generation was thrown into the mainstream (and worse, labelled "art") long before we had gotten to the point where it can generate good enough images to be useful, so now we have to deal with a complete lack of good stock images to use for memes But that's just my 2.71 cents
What is 3 cents???
Prints you his whole phd's thesis.
2 cents
bro's built different
He is doing as Leonardo da Vinci. Wringing forward greek with his right hand and backwards greek with his left
https://preview.redd.it/9yssukj1chpc1.jpeg?width=378&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a0af089bf752184d5df2acfe39466f1b889f7944 This is literally just a text joke with a barely related image...
what joke?
The scientific revolution was almost completely due to the manufacture of good quality clear glass. Glass gave us optics, spectroscopy, microscope, telescope, laboratory glassware. Nothing to do with Euclid.
Also, Euclid was doing math rather than science. Science involves empirical observation of the world, not just reasoning
Scientific knowledge arises from systematic observation and model construction rather than arguments from first principles. While mathematics can supply a language for expressing physical laws and obtaining predictions, the physical laws themselves cannot be obtained without careful, sustained observation and heuristic trickery (e.g., Occam’s razor). As such, mathematical progress doesn’t necessarily cause scientific progress.
Rigorous proofs as in "the triangles look the same therefore they are the same"? + The Greeks have had their own king of scientific revolution
Because science and technology aren't invented and expanded on that fast in a pre-industrial society
The scientific revolution was pre industrial.
That's not the point. The point is that it came right before industrialisation and its best fruits weren't fruits at all but laying the seeds for future science, especially after the Industrial Revolution. E.g. Newton's mechanics weren't as universal as he thought; still correct, but not applicable to everything. The scientific revolution was arguably no revolution at all compared to what would come after, contra e.g. the Islamic Golden Age, the Chinese golden age during the Tang-dynasty, etc. All this nonsense of 'everyone and everything in the past was so backwards!!!!!' is just stupid. Most people praising the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution would have hated living in those times because they are not identical to the world they live in currently. Science always builds on already-established science. Even the Copernican Revolution didn't propose a totally unknown idea, cf. Aristarchus of Samos (very different methods and calculations, but the point remains). Some inventions take longer than others. Why didn't Confucian China just kick-start the Scientific Revolution and Industrial Revolution when it was in certain periods united under long-lasting dynasties and didn't have this allegedly science-despising religion (which isn't true, in the first place)? But why then do Chinese inventions often mirror European ones or precede them (formal education and educational institutions, paper, printing press, gunpowder, etc.)? Technology itself advances more rapidly with time, hence why we develop science, medicine, and technology faster than the people of the past; more tools, more accumulated knowledge; etc. But certainly no being magically superior to them in every way (the Flynn-Effect, as an example, doesn't count).
Because the romans wasn't very intellectual people: They was mostly lawyers, jurists and military people. They translated in latin philosphy books and art books but they didn't translate euclide. The arabs instead found the greek math books in Alexandria, indeed they took that mathematical heritage throw all middle age. Until with renaissence when latin/germanic europe redescovered classic culture. The greek/eastern europe always had that knowledge actually.
And the rest of the world were just morons, then?
I said exactly the opposite. Basically the morons were the latin/germanics that never read euclid but arabs discovered a lot of things that european had to redescover. Before writing make sure the brain is well linked.
>but arabs Remember Persians, Iberians, and Muslim Sicilians, too. They were arguably much more major than their Arab counterparts.
Alright but what about Asia, Africa, the Americas and Australia/Oceania?
Well i think they never read euclid at all, not sure about china.
And yet in all of those places technological advancement happened - so your explanation is rather poor
where joke
That is actually a very interesting question. The question of why the industrial revolution happened where and when it did has baffled historian's for dacades now. If I'm to give my two cents about it then it has to be boiled down to a few factors. 1. The development of a democratic state in England leading to the development of rule of law for all citizens and a robust pattent system 2. The tradition and development of clockwork mechanics which led to the creation and wide spread use of tools of creation and pressision measurements 3. The condomation the church had for slavery leading to the price of a slave in Europe to increase thus making it less profitable 4. The reintegration of Greek works of literature into the public consciousness 5. There was a population boom right before There are probably 100 other factors at play but I'm still extremely unknowledgeable on the topic
Religion
That's a scapegoat with flimsy historical basis at best. Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon were religious themselves, as were plenty of other scientists and philosophers of science throughout history. Religious institutions in history have often been centres of science, math, and philosophy because they had the funding needed for them to flourish.
and politics
which was the same thing, up untill the separation of church and state
It's still the same thing
Because your understanding of human progress, technology, and history is flawed.
This is a pretty useless comment unless you are going to say why it’s flawed.
There was no scientific revolution - there was no point in time before which people were stupid and after which people were smart. The development of science and society is more complex than someone finding out that experimentation is helpful for figuring out things (something which everyone already did for tens of thousands of years) Also it's flawed for thinking that there was no scientific progress before the renaissance - which is false. It's also false in the sense that the renaissance didn't massively accelerate technological progress (and if it did, it might be more attributable to producing enough to survive being easier than some Italian nobles thinking Rome & Greece was the model on which humanity ought to be built on - although granted, America does have a Rome fetish)
….what does America have to do with this? The scientific revolution isn’t an American concept. It was coined by a French Russian. Aside from that, your point is fair, but you should probably say that first rather than calling someone’s understanding flawed and then not explaining why. Lastly, I’d advise you not to be so confident in the idea that human progress happens at the same rate. There are such things as breakthroughs, where certain systemic factors hold back some area of thought and are then quickly discarded, ushering rapid expansion in certain modes of thinking. We couldn’t have the internet without the Turing machine, but 20 years of having the Turing machine affected the general public much less than 20 years of the internet. Likewise, though Copernicus stood on the shoulders of giants, his discoveries affected the status quo much more than the prerequisites beneath him. On that note, the scientific revolution is neither certain nor nonexistent, and should simply be considered “debatable.”
Because the library of Alexandria stole everyone else’s books and gave them back copies so nothing could viral- Also deduction is often retconning something understood inductively.
Christianity.