Talk:Antikythera mechanism

The Mechanical Ephemeris solution

On Sunday, September 17, 2012, I added notes to the section entitled, Speculation About the Mechanism's Purpose. I had noted the existing speculation was by Derek_J._de_Solla_Price and was otherwise unsourced. Price's speculation was then followed by unsourced refutation, leaving the matter entirely in the air.

I suggested the device was intended for working astrologers, as a mechanical ephemeris. I am, myself, a working astrologer. In this area, and as a publisher, I have published new - legal - editions of David Pingree's translation of Dorotheus_of_Sidon's Carmen Astrologicum (1st century CE); Ancient Astrology Theory and Practice/Matheseos Libri VIII, by Julius_Firmicus_Maternus (4th century CE), the translation by Jean Rhys Bram; R. Ramsay Wright's 1934 translation of The Book of Instruction by Abū_Rayḥān_al-Bīrūnī (11th century CE); as well as a new edition of the J.M. Ashmand translation of the Proclus paraphrase of Claudius Ptolemy's Tetrabiblos (2nd century CE). Presently I working on an edition of Mark Riley's translation of the Anthologies of Vettius_Valens (2nd century CE). This will be its first time in print, by the way, I am working with the permission and cooperation of Prof. Riley himself. Elsewhere I have published a definitive new edition of William_Lilly's Christian_Astrology, of 1647, as well as other, more obscure, early works. It may therefore be said that my opinions in this matter have weight. I am well-read in the area of early astrology, having studied Otto_E._Neugebauer, Van Hosen and Kroll, in addition to David_Pingree and Mark Riley, all established experts in early Greek astrology, and none of them astrologers. While I may be a horrid astrologer, I am not "in-universe." I have an extensive resume. Or would you rather I simply denied the bit where I admit I'm an astrologer? I'm well-known in the field, but Wiki may just be so insular that Wiki will never find out.

I was surprised to see that my suggested use of the Antikythera mechanism was removed in less than 24 hours. Elsewhere I have learned that Wiki has an express policy that prohibits the promotion of "pseudoscience" in any fashion whatever. Pseudoscience - astrology is one of the worst examples - may not be linked or associated in any fashion with proper, legitimate, legal science. Here is part of it: Pseudoscience may be significant as a social phenomenon, but it should not obfuscate the description of mainstream scientific views. Any mention of pseudoscientific views should be proportionate to the rest of the article. (found here: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience This is Wiki's express policy, I have now seen and experienced it in the past 24 hours. Without any note that a deletion was made.

So it would appear that if the ancients developed something for the aid of astrologers and if such a device "fell out" and became disassociated with astrology and was then found and mislabeled as some other kind of artifact, and if an astrologer came upon this and, after careful study, realized its true nature and made a speculative case for it, he will be prohibited from speaking. Even in a section clearly labeled as Speculation ! In this case, it's not that my remarks were "unsourced." The existing Wiki section is itself unsourced, being 1. idle speculation followed by, 2. unsourced refutation of idle speculation (shoot yourself in the foot?). I had mentioned the mechanical ephemeris idea in the previous Talk page, which generated much comment, but which Wiki has recently archived, which is to say, removed from public attention. Why was this done?

Despite Wiki's beliefs, astrologers eat, piss, shit and fuck just like everyone else. We are people. Like all intelligent apes, we have tools. So if the Antikythera mechanism is in fact a mechanical ephemeris, an astrological tool, what should we do about it? Is this a matter for Occam's_razor? (If it looks like a duck, etc.) Or is that to be applied selectively?

If the original purpose of this device is no longer acceptable, we could be honest and say, "This is an astrological device, therefore it is junk and to be discarded." I think I would understand that, I think I would be okay with that. Which might surprise you, but as astrology was thrown away 350 years ago, astrologers have become accustomed to looking in refuse heaps (Oxyrhynchus). (Aside from the Egyptian site, whatever we find in a dump is ours, by the way. Since no one wants it, no one will bother us.) But we don't want to throw Antikythera mechanism away because we have foolishly become emotionally attached to it. It's such a lovely piece of work, it means so very much, it must have been intended for some approved use. We just have to discover what it was! - But after a century, what is that "approved use" - ?

As the existing Speculation section is itself a speculation (Antikythera_mechanism#Speculation_about_the_mechanism.27s_purpose), it should begin with, "At this time, this device has no known use."

When anthropologists go into the field, they are strongly cautioned about Ethnocentrism. Western science in general, and Wiki in particular, have a very bad case of it. Dave of Maryland (talk) 16:13, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It appears you didn't cite the claims made in your edit. If you have published you should easily be able to cite (to the page number even) anything you write here. You can't use anything that is unpublished and unreviewed because there is no way to verify it and you could be anybody (wikimedia sites don't have any way to verify this). That entire section of the article needs work, so if you could give it a bit of extra time you (if you are as qualified as you claim) would be the perfect person to clean that section up. If you can't get to grips (or don't want to) with the citation system, just put the publication title, author, pages, dates and other such things inside <ref> ... </ref> tags and someone will clean them up eventually. --Lead holder (talk) 17:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Lead Holder, let's get real here. The existing refutation is entirely unsourced. Price's "suggestion" was made by a man whom Wiki describes as a " physicist, historian of science, and information scientist, credited as the father of scientometrics." That makes him an expert in the field. Under what basis did Wiki doubt him?

The physical location of celestial bodies is astronomy, not astrology! Is there any indication that the greek lettering is assigning non-physical meanings to any of the positions? By your claim any orbital calculation is "astrology".Spitzak (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello Spitzak, there seems to be confusion here. Positions are positions. Positions have no meaning. A map of the sky can be drawn for any moment in time, set for any location on the planet. In itself such a map is an objective fact. In itself it has no meaning whatever. Astrologers term this map a natal chart and apply meaning to it. I'm sorry if that's not clear. The Greek lettering on the Antikythera mechanism implies nothing at all. The challenge is to explain why the device exists, for what reason it was made, who used it.

Skeptics can carp all they want. This is a mechanical ephemeris made for the use of astrologers, who, then as now, were numerous. They required accurate planetary positions for their work. At the time there were no printed ephemerides nor were there nearby observatories. The best they could do were laborious counts. The ones given in Vettius Valens require counting back to the death of Julius and Augustus Caesar, which was more than 150 years prior. Which was done in Attic, Ionian or Roman numbers, by the way, as Arabic numbers did not exist, not even in India, which developed them.

While many astrologers, then as now, were casual in their study, there would be a small number with paying clients, who would have the money for this very expensive device. Think of this as a detective novel: We have motive, we have means.

The device was made in Alexandria, for the simple reason that such a device must be calibrated, and that can only happen in a city with an observatory. The choices are Alexandria and Babylon. As Babylon did not speak Greek, we may presume Alexandria.

The device was one of many. We know this because of its size. A one-off will be quite large and, as speculated, would be suitable for display. That was my reference to Jean-Baptiste_Schwilgué, which you did not bother to check before you deleted it. I have myself seen his device.

The Antikythera mechanism was sold by mail order. We know this from the text of the plates that were attached to it. They were a general set of instructions intended for persons unknown. If a traveler came to Alexandria and bought the machine in person, it presumably would have no such explanation. Because of this, we may presume the device was in transit to its purchaser when it was lost at sea.

If all of the following is true, we may also presume the device to be more or less mass-produced, with interchangeable parts. Again: Small size means one of many. Explanatory plates mean mail order. Calibration means Alexandria. We can build upon our presumptions. The tolerances on this machine are so fine that it would be a nightmare calibrating it if the individual parts were were custom made for each machine. Very likely the remains of similar machines will be found in local Turkish museums, where they might have histories attached. This is a masterpiece.

All of this can be known by observation and deduction, but only by someone who has actual knowledge of ancient society. I can, if you wish, nominate people, aside from myself, who can offer informed opinion. And by the way, with the background I stated, I am myself an expert in this area.

It's been a century since it was discovered. If there's a better explanation than this, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, Mr. Price is the expert and if there are no creditable experts to refute him, his opinion should stand.

PS. Someone with a Ph.D. after his name could well steal this, publish it in some peer-reviewed paper, and thereafter claim credit as the man who solved the Antikythera puzzle. Would I mind? Would it make any difference if I did?

I stand corrected re: Alexandria. It would seem that Rhodes is a more likely source Dave of Maryland (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2012 (UTC)