Hacker News Reader

Comment by cscurmudgeon | Hacker News Reader

> It was not until Galileo’s time, however, that scientists really began study it

It is 2022 and yet we see mildly racist falsehoods like this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surya_Siddhanta

  the diameter of the moon as 2,400 miles (actual ~2,160)[6] and the distance between the moon and the earth to be 258,000 miles[6] (now known to vary: 221,500–252,700 miles (356,500–406,700 kilometres).[11]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryabhata

  Aryabhata also noted that the luminosity of the Moon and other planets is due to reflected sunlight.

View on HN

I didn't downvote you, but I think "implicit or unconscious ethno-centrism" might be a more suitable term than "mildly racist". At least it could have been more palatable to the HN hive mind.

From the article:

> Humankind has maintained an enduring fascination with the Moon. It was not until Galileo’s time, however, that scientists really began study it.

I'd agree with you that this statement ignores how scientists around the world, including European and "non-Western" cultures, have studied the moon - more or less scientifically and mathematically - for centuries before Galileo. (In the case of Aryabhata, a millenium earlier.)

Ancient Greek study of the Moon predates the Surya Siddhanta by ~1000 years:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/ancient-greek-...

  2,500 years ago, Anaxagoras correctly determined that the rocky moon reflects light from the sun, allowing him to explain lunar phases and eclipses

I think they’re referring to studies with telescopes, rather than math.

You can do science without telescopes.

Studying orbits is not just math.

Had never heard of these - thanks for sharing!

I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted... seems to be an accurate statement. The Surya Siddhanta predates Galileo by more than a millenia.

I did not downvote, but my racism detector’s gain is not high enough to detect the racism here, which might be leading to downvotes.

The earlier learnings are interesting; the accusation that racism has something to do with the omission is not.

Agreed. If someone argued that geology began in the 1800s and neglected to mention Eratosthenes’ calculation of Earth’s size 2000 years earlier, I’d hardly say they’re showing an anti-Greek bias.

In this case it’s more likely either ignorance or a different definition of “study”.

The article doesn't state that "astronomy" as a whole was invented by Galileo, but rather that the moon itself was never studied scientifically until his time. That's a patently false statement that requires dismissing the millennia of Indian observations and research on the moon. I'm pretty sure we could make similar arguments for the Middle East or Asia.

It's like when they teach that everyone thought the world was flat back then. They didn't. That's a fairy tale. Some people thought that, but the idea that the Earth was in fact round was not a shocking finding to contemporary people.

Likewise, geology as a field may have begun in the 1800s, but you wouldn't claim that no one tried to study any aspect of the earth before then. And if you did, I would describe that as being at least ignorant of Eratosthenes. (Actually, no I wouldn't, because I almost certainly wouldn't have thought of that precise example. But I digress.)

Is the issue that "racist" just seems too harsh of a label for what may be a simple error? One can definitely argue there is a western bias in claiming Galileo as the starting point for studying the moon. Maybe conflating "western bias" with "racism" is a step too far.

> a patently false statement that requires dismissing the millennia of Indian observations and research on the moon

Every culture observed and most rendered calculations on the moon's motion. Forecasting eclipses is a motif of early mathematics.

> geology as a field may have begun in the 1800s, but you wouldn't claim that no one tried to study any aspect of the earth before then

"Studying any aspect" of something isn't scientifically analyzing it. To my knowledge, Siddhanta and Aryabhata calculated the motion of celestial bodies remarkably early. But many others independently repeated those calculations, albeit with varying accuracy, across the world and millennia. None of those methodically delved into lunar makeup and origins. The tools didn't exist. The scientific method didn't exist.

Aryabhata did comment on the moon's luminosity. But that's a far cry from attempting to prove it. Which is fine. It doesn't diminish him or his work. But it fails as a counterpoint to the rigor and volume of post-Galilean research.

> Every culture observed and most rendered calculations on the moon. Calculating eclipses was similarly attempted and solved by practically every major civilization.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting it was only India. I was saying there's something western-centric about dating things to Galileo. However...

> Nobody, however, methodically delved into lunar makeup and origins in a way remotely scientific, in part because the scientific method is a relatively recent invention.

Fair point. If you're saying that anything prior to the scientific method (or that doesn't utilize the scientific method) doesn't count as science, I can see this argument and am happy to concede the point.

> anything prior to the scientific method (or that doesn't utilize the scientific method) doesn't count as science, I can see this argument

Not quite arguing this. The article says it wasn't until Galileo that "scientists really [began] to study" the moon. Within the context of the moon's origin, it's a legitimate statement.

Ancient astronomers weren't following the scientific method, but I wouldn't dismiss them as not being scientists. If someone said scientists didn't really start studying subatomic particles until the 19th century, it would be asinine to claim offense on the basis of Lucretius having mentioned indivisible building blocks of reality.

Put another way, the same comment would have been stronger without the accusation of racism. (Qualifying with "mild" does nothing. Calling someone mildly idiotic isn't somehow less provocative than saying they're an idiot.)

Because OP used a trigger word and HN instinctually downvotes that word instead of taking the more charitable action of benevolently and accurately interpreting OP as having meant “cultural bias.”

Also fair, I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com