A "Chinese Eratosthenes" Reconsidered: Chinese and Greek Calculations and Categories1
134 EASTM 19 (2002) A "Chinese Eratosthenes" Reconsidered: Chinese and Greek Calculations and Categories1 Lisa Raphals [Lisa Raphals is Professor of Chinese and Comparative Literature at the University of California, Riverside. She is author of Knowing Words: Wisdom and Cunning in the Classical Traditions of China and Greece (1992), Sharing the Light: Representations of Women and Virtue in Early China (1998), and a range of studies in comparative philosophy, history of science and early Taoism. Recent and forthcoming publications include: "The Treatment of Women in a Second-Century Medical Casebook" (Chinese Science, 1998), "Arguments by Women in Early Chinese Texts" (Nan Nü, 2001), and "Fate, Fortune, Chance and Luck in Chinese and Greek: A Comparative Semantic History" (Philosophy East & West 2003, forthcoming).] * * * In the third century B.C.E., Eratosthenes of Cyrene (276-196) attempted to calculate the circumference of the earth using gnomon measurements and the properties of similar triangles. His calculation is widely taken as one of the great achievements of Greek science. In "A Chinese Eratosthenes of the flat earth: a study of a fragment of cosmology in Huai Nan tzu ," Christopher Cullen remarks that a comparison of Greek and Chinese calculations provides a good example of the characteristics of success and failure in science. Eratosthenes had two hypotheses of considerable predictive power, despite the fact that he would have found some difficulty in justifying them: (a) the earth is spherical; (b) the sun is for practical purposes at an infinite distance so that its rays reach the earth sensibly parallel. As it will appear, the Chinese author believed neither of these things.2 1 Earlier versions of this paper were presented in the conference "Rethinking Science and Civilization: The Ideologies, Disciplines, and Rhetorics of World History," Stanford University May 21-23, 1999; at the Needham Research Institute, September 10, 1999; and in the Mathematics Colloquium of the University of California at Riverside (April 27, 2000).
[Show full text]