Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle

by G.E.R. Lloyd

Although there is no exact equivalent to our term science in Greek, Western science may still be said to have originated with the Greeks, for they were the first to attempt to explain natural phenomena consistently in naturalistic terms, and they initiated the practices of rational criticism of scientific theories. This study traces Greek science through the work of the Pythagoreans, the Presocratic natural philosophers, the Hippocratic writers, Plato, the fourth-century B.C. astronomers, and Aristotle. G. E. R. Lloyd also investigates the relationships between science and philosophy and science and medicine; he discusses the social and economic setting of early Greek science; and he analyzes the motives and incentives of the different groups of writers.

Genres: History, Science, Philosophy, Nonfiction, History Of Science, Greece, Ancient History

176 pages, Paperback

First published September 30, 1970

About the author

Sir Geoffrey Ernest Richard Lloyd is Emeritus Professor of Ancient Philosophy and Science at the Needham Research Institute. His University career has been based chiefly at the University of Cambridge, where he held various University and College posts, first at King's College and then at Darwin. From 1983 onwards he held a personal Chair in Ancient Philosophy and Science and from 1989 until retirement in 2000 he was Master of Darwin College. He served as Chairman of the East Asian History of Science trust, which is the governing body directing the work of the Needham Research Institute from 1992 to 2002, and afterward Senior Scholar in Residence at that Institute.

Prof. Lloyd has held visiting professorships and lectured across the world, in Europe (France, Italy, Spain, Germany, Portugal, Holland, Belgium, Greece) in the Far East (Fellow of the Japan society for the Promotion of Science in Tokyo in 1981, visiting professor at Beijing daxue in 1987, visiting professor at Sendai in 1991, and the first Zhu Kezhen Visiting Professor in the History of Science at the Institute for the History of Natural Science, Beijing, in 2001), in Australasia (Hood Professor at the Department of Philosophy at the University of Auckland, 2006) and in North America (Bonsall professor, Stanford in 1981; Sather professor Berkeley in 1984; AD White professor at large, Cornell from 1990 to 1996; also lectured at Harvard, Princeton, the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, Yale, Brown, University of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, UCLA, Austin, Chicago among other places).

He has served on the editorial committees of 10 journals, including Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Journal of the History of Astronomy, Physis, History of the Human Sciences, Arabic Sciences and Philosophy, Endoxa and Antiquorum Philosophia.

Reviews

[Mark Bowles · Rating 5 out of 5]

It was the awakening of the scientific mind, the opening of the spirit of man to the nature of inquiry, and the beginnings of quantification and experimentation. Early Greek Science: Thales to Aristotle and Greek Science After Aristotle by G.E.R. Lloyd are studies of Greek science from Thales of Miletus in 585 B.C. to Galen of Pergamum in 180 A.D and the decline of ancient science. While there is no direct Greek translation of our word science, Lloyd's thesis, nevertheless, is that modern-day science began with the Greeks.
While the main thesis of both books are the same, their intent is different. Book one concentrates on the development of two key methodological principles of the early Greeks. The first is an application of mathematics to the understanding of natural phenomena, and the second is the performance of empirical re¬search on defined problems. Book two takes these principles and discusses the later Greeks' successes and failures while working with them.
The books are structured topically with physics, biology, astronomy, and mathematics being the four branches of science that are most closely studied. Lloyd makes numerous anachronistic comparisons throughout the books often stating that a certain theory was successful. He views some of the successes as would a presentist but also explores obvious failures in a diachronical sense. He seems to make these relationships of success to sub¬stantiate his thesis that a line can be drawn from ancient to modern science.
Book one begins with Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes, who are the Milesians that provide the first distinction between the natural and the supernatural. Instead of creating a mythology to explain natural occurrences, such as lightening and thunder, they attempted to give naturalistic explanations. The Milesians main contribution was that they grasped the problems that confronted them and attempted to account for the problem of change with their materialistic, cosmological doctrines.
The Pythagoreans differed from the materialistic Milesians belief with their principle that all things were actually num¬bers. With this idea they were the first to quantify nature and develop deductive methods in mathematics. They carried out empir¬ical investigations in acoustics and produced a cosmological system which removed the earth from the center.
The study of physical systems and natural science also yielded methodological advancements. Those who studied the physi¬cal systems dealt with problems of change and debated on the reliability of pure reason and the senses. The Hippocratic writ¬ers were the first to contend that disease was a natural phenome¬na. They made case studies and performed methodological observa¬tion in the diagnosis of disease.
The fourth-century astronomers carried the numerical appli¬cations of the Pythagoreans to a larger proving ground, the heavens. Astronomy was studied for practical reasons, determining the farmer's year and regulating the calender; but it was Plato who contributed the most by applying mathematics to the under¬standing of natural phenomena and physical order.
While Plato established the first methodological principle of the early Greeks, Aristotle provided the second. Aristotle advocated the idea of empirical research to the process of inves-tigation. His book the Organon details the structure of his axiomatic, deductive system. He felt that the aim of natural science was to reveal causes of natural phenomena. Aristotle contributed to numerous areas of thought including biology, meteorology, and physics. His founding of the Lyceum established a center for research which far exceeded any other previous attempt. Book two begins with the Hellenistic period (322-122 B.C.). This period benefited from the cultural policies of the Ptole¬mies, who granted financial support for scientific inquiries. Theophrastus of Eresus and Strato of Lampsacus succeeded Aristo¬tle as heads of the Lyceum. Theophrastus did not conduct experi¬ments but was the first to identify a mineral product as fuel. His major contributions were collecting and classifying species of animals and plants. In contrast, Strato used experimentation more than any other Greek for investigation; for example, he attempted to prove, experimentally, that falling bodies acceler¬ated.
Hellenistic mathematics proved to be the most permanent and lasting contribution of all Greek thought. Euclid's Elements employed a deductive system in the first mathematical text book and is still in use today. Other Hellenistic mathematicians suc¬cessfully applied math to new fields. Archimedes studied statics and problems of the lever; Eratosthenes applied math to geography and made a close determination of the circumference of the earth; and Appolonius studied and coined the terms ellipse, hyperbola, and parabola.
Hellenistic astronomy expanded on Eudoxes' previous system of concentric spheres. Aristarchus was the most successful of the astronomers with his heliocentric model of the heavens. Hippar¬chus also contributed with his development of observational devices such as the dioptra for sighting and the astrolabe. The problems with these astronomers were in their attempts to "save the appearances" so that observation and mathematical reasoning corresponded to each other. In their struggle to do this, they often ignored key data that did not fit the theory.
Biology and Medicine of the Hellenistic Age was led by Herophilus of Chalcedon and Erasistratus of Ceos. Herophilus studied anatomy and recognized that the brain was the center of the nervous system. His main contribution was in the diagnostic value of the pulse. Erasistratus used mechanical ideas to explain organic processes. He discovered the differences between the veins and arteries and knew the functions of the four main valves of the heart. He failed in his conception that the veins carried air throughout the body.
Mechanics and technology were based on the five known de¬vices; lever, pulley, wedge, windlass, and screw. The motives for construction of these devices were for war machines, practical use, and amusement. Technology often was slow to be diffused and taken advantage of. The water wheel exemplified this because of the insufficient water supply and the abundance of slave labor. A successful use of technology that caught on quickly was the pompein rotary mill which used animals to grind grain. The major failure of the Greeks in this area was in the fact that they did not use steam or wind as a motive power for their machines. The main reason for lack of development was that society did not place a great emphasis on these fields.
Two great thinkers emerged in the second century A.D. who represented a culmination of Greek thought and science. The first, Ptolemy of Alexandria, wrote the Almagest which became the most comprehensive treaty on astronomy. He carried out the aims of his predecessors by advancing the value of mathematical calcu¬lation over observation. Ptolemy described models for the moon and mercury and described the size of the epicycle, eccentricity, and the magnitude and duration of retrogradations for each pla¬net. Problems that arise with Ptolemy are the same as with the fourth century Hellensitic astronomers in that he ignored data to "save the appearances."
The second great thinker was Galen of Pergamum. His main work was in biology and medicine, and he often applied this knowledge to his occupation as surgeon to the galdiators. He correctly interpreted the function of the liver, heart, and brain and refuted Erasistratus' theory that the veins carried air. He performed a vast amount of empirical research by dissecting and vivisecting animals. The main motive of his research was to prove that nature did nothing without order or purpose.
Book two ends with a discussion on the decline of ancient science. Lloyd contends that science did not abruptly end after 200 A.D. but gradually faded away. Christianity became an obsta¬cle to the growth and development of scientific thought. The Christians thought that truth came from neither observation nor reason but from divine intervention. With this attitude in power, pagan scientists had a difficult position to work against. Lloyd says that Greek science never really died. It was rediscovered by Kepler and Galileo who studied the works of Plato and Pythagoras in their search for mathematical order.
Reviews on the books were extremely positive. In an article in The Classical Journal (Vol.72, October 1976, p. 82) John Scar¬borough applauded Lloyd for separating ancient philosophy from science. He said that Farrington and Stahl failed to consider the science of this period. The American Historical Review (Vol. 77, December 1972, p. 1421) in a review on the first book of Lloyd's by Michael Jame¬son, regretted that nothing on technology was covered. He was positive in the treatment of the formulation of the problems of science and the use of empirical research and mathematical appli¬cation.
A review of book two in The Classical World (Vol.69, March 1976, p. 407) by Stephen Waite states that these books provide a good compliment to Sarton's History of Science. Waite feels that the modern concept of science is reached with the Hellenistic period and particularly with the mathematicians. He recommends these books for any course in ancient science.
My own thoughts on these books are also positive, but I do have some criticisms. First, on the positive side, I feel that Lloyd gives a well-structured (for the most part), clear discus¬sion on the topic of Greek science. I agree that modern-day science began with the Greeks as it was they who established the methodological principles that underlie any systematic inquiry.
My criticism is with his brief inclusion of technology as a subset of science. He stated in the preface of book one that there was little information on the interaction between science and technology; but the inclusion of the chapter in book two on applied mechanics and technology proved that there was informa¬tion on this subject, and I feel it warrants a separate discus¬sion.
Overall, I now feel I have an appreciation for what the relatively few Greeks did in such a diverse and unknown area which is what we call science. They contributed in fields from petrology to anatomy to applied physics and firmly established themselves as pioneers to the future generations who would even¬tually rediscover and reinterpret them. With a diachronistic view these men were natural philosophers and mathematicians, but with an anachronistic eye these men were scientists.

[Andee Nero · Rating 4 out of 5]

I think this is a really great starting point for people interested in Greek science, but you would still need to read more specific works, particularly on 4th century astronomy, Plato, Hippocrates and Aristotle, in order to really grasp the importance of the developments Lloyd puts under discussion.

[N Perrin · Rating 3 out of 5]

Overview without much depth. Lloyd's Magic, Reason, and Experience and Polarity and Analogy are more interesting conceptually. This volume (and I assume its successor as well) are best reserved for those uninitiated in the subject matter.

[AC · Rating 5 out of 5]

i've used this and its companion volume with undergraduates, and they are very good... Not a substitute for Dicks (Ancient Greek Astronomy) or Neugebauer, of course... But good introductins, and very, very readable.

[Erik · Rating 4 out of 5]

Topical but it hits all the high notes and keeps judgment to a minimum. This might be an appropriate text for a class, as long as it is supplemented with more serious material for focus.

[Lance Schonberg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Big chunks of this were required reading for a recent classics course. The parts that weren’t didn’t take too long to fill in to get the full overview intended by the author. This, and its companion volume need to be considered introductory texts, a basic introduction to some of the major figures, movements, and work in the building of Greek science without going into tremendous depth. That said, I haven’t done enough other reading yet to know if this is dated or not. Written in the early 70s, that means there has been more than four decades of research, scholarship, and archaeology since.

It is important to note that neither volume offers any judgement on the nature of the science noted or discussed, recognizing that we bring our own cultural and temporal baggage to any reading. Without descending into relativism, Lloyd reminds us without needing to do it directly that science is an ongoing process and what the ancient Greeks developed leaned heavily on what they knew and understood at the time, building on the knowledge and work that came before them.

[Georgia Gold]

for class, but learned a ton abt ancient philosophers and their theories of the world. There were some super wacky ideas. My fav thing was that the Pythagoreans were essentially a cult, and they left the guy that discovered irrational numbers at sea to die because they just weren't ready to deal with that. Hilarious! And then there was this guy (Thales) that thought the earth floated on water like a boat, and don't get me started on the super weird astronomical theories

[Ryan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a classic that requires an update based on scholarship from the past few decades.

[Justin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Class

[Mohamed Nour · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent book

[Patrick Garner · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fascinating read.

[Galatea · Rating 4 out of 5]

A short, readable summary of science before it was called science, starting with the Presocratics and ending with Aristotle. Amazingly good.

[Chris]

I really don't think everything is water

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a handy little introduction to what the ancients would have called "natural philosophy." They didn't have science the way we think of it today, but they did still try to understand the natural world, how it works, and how it came to be. Lloyd writes clearly, and gives a great understanding of what the ancient questions were and how thinkers tried to come up with answers. The book doesn't waste time trying to show all of the ways in which the ancients were wrong by modern standards. He doesn't deny this, but instead of making it the focus, he focuses on the miraculous depth of understanding that the ancients did seem to have and the way that their scientific inquiries were able to reach a critical mass by the time of Aristotle. This makes the great philosopher seem more like a historical inevitability than some miraculous genius, although genius he surely was too. The book covers ancient physics, material science, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, and biology. In particular, the book focuses on physics, material science, and astronomy, as well as basic scientific method, because these were the most developed fields during this period. Medicine was also very developed during this period, but is too big a topic to do justice to in such a short book. (If you are interested in that, I recommend Nutton's Ancient Medicine.) I found the section on astronomy difficult, because the ancient models of the cosmos (in which planets, stars, sun, and moon are attached to rotating spheres) were hard for me to visualize. There are several helpful diagrams to illustrate this, but I still struggled to wrap my mind around their models. This book made me excited to get ahold the sequel, Greek Science After Aristotle.

[Yuxin · Rating 5 out of 5]

The construction of points is so clear to understand. Very helpful for novice in philosophy like me.

[Mary · Rating 4 out of 5]

A clear overview of the main people and ideas (that we know about...) in early Greek natural philosophy.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Geeky fun...