This is an update to a series of blogs I've run on the film Agora, about the murder of the scientist Hypatia in the 5th century A.D. (see Killings Hypatia and Weisz Is Hypatia). Until now I was responding to what other people said who saw it. But then I discovered Agora was playing at a theater in Berkeley, so Jen and I went to see it. I can now give it my own first-person review...
A while ago I blogged about a coming film on Hypatia of Alexandria (Weisz Is Hypatia). I've heard reviews from people who've seen it (still hasn't come to where I am, and might never), and they've reassured me it isn't as loose with historical facts as it at first sounded. It does engage in fictional "what ifs" apparently, but that's fine.
One review of note is by a medievalist who posted at the website of Skeptic magazine (Was Hypatia of Alexandria a Scientist? by S. James Killings). His area of expertise is not Late Antiquity, or ancient science, so he gets a lot wrong. Nevertheless, he's right about a lot, so in case you'd like to benefit from reading his brief commentary but not get misled by the errors in it, I've composed the following corrective, which is also informative and educational in its own right. You won't likely have known a lot of this stuff.
This blog entry adds to the running series I've had going for a while now addressing misrepresentations of ancient science in the media (the latest being Flynn's Pile of Boners). An extensive bibliography of references are already provided in my chapter on ancient science in The Christian Delusion (TCD). I'll start with the minor errors (in Killings' blog, not the movie) and progress to the more serious.
I've finished reading James Hannam's book God's Philosophers, which I'll probably start blogging about next month. But in the meantime I'm overdue to comment on a much screwier exchange on the same subject online. I'll do that now, to whet your appetite for my discussion of Hannam's much more careful and informative treatment.
Mike Flynn (in "The Age of Unreason") levels many correct and valid criticisms of Jim Walker's wildly erroneous "The Myth of Christianity Founding Modern Science and Medicine (And the Hole Left by the Christian Dark Ages)" (and that despite the fact that I'm sympathetic to Walker's point, and even make the same argument, albeit correctly, in the forthcoming anthology The Christian Delusion, about which I'll blog as soon as I've seen the galleys). Walker responded to Flynn's critique ("Mike Flynn Discovers the Dark Ages"), this time getting a lot more right (particularly in his discussion of technology), but he still gets enough wrong (or still makes too many claims with greater certainty than is warranted), that I can't recommend it. That aside, both Flynn and Walker's main essays are shot through with so many mistakes of fact they can only miseducate, and thus have no value (even worse than no value, since reading them will only spread their error further). So I don't recommend reading either. Here I'm going to try and correct the damage by dispelling the myths Flynn repeats.
Last year I recorded a new lengthy interview for the Polyschizmatic Reprobates Hour on Rodney Stark's disastrously awful treatment of ancient science. Dan the Demented cut the show into three parts, the third on other topics, but the first two on Stark. Those two episodes are now up and available, on the PRH website and as podcasts. You can listen to them here: [Season 3 Episode 3] [Season 3 Episode 4]. Together this is essentially a two-part lambaste of Rodney Stark's embarrassing forray into ancient history, where I pillory his claim that Christianity made science possible, by educating the listener on the actual historical facts of Greco-Roman science (and technology). We quote his books For the Glory of God and The Victory of Reason and dissect their absurd falsehoods point-by-point. Each show runs 45 minutes.
The nature of an off-the-cuff interview lends itself to occasional slips of wording, so I must correct two of those: (1) obviously I meant to say a catheter goes into the bladder, not the kidney (they had a separate instrument that could enter the kidney to extract kidney stones); and (2) it was Ptolemy's lunar orbit that was (in combined motions) nearly elliptical, not his planetary orbits (the latter were still non-circular, describing curlycues, and were still eccentric, with velocities varying in reference to a focal point anticipating Kepler's Second Law--they would only have been nearly elliptical if anyone translated his system to a heliocenter).
A more concise and thoroughly vetted and referenced version of this show's argument will appear in a forthcoming book being edited by John Loftus.
The absurdly beautiful Rachel Weisz is playing the famous atheist and feminist icon, the late 4th century pagan philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria, in the epic film Agora by Alejandro Amenábar, which is projected to release in December, just before Christmas. According to Rueters, the film sounds like an interesting pro-atheist myth, exaggerating certain realities to convey a pro-science message against maniacal religious fundamentalism. Reviewers who have seen early edits give the impression that Hypatia is depicted as an atheist, and as an active scientific investigator on the verge of proving heliocentrism. An intriguing, perhaps inspiring idea. But fiction surely.
The best scholarly account of the facts can be found in Maria Dzielska's Hypatia of Alexandria (Harvard University: 1995). Hypatia was by all accounts a Neoplatonic theist, although the difference would be mild to most modern imaginations. Neoplatonists did not accept the notion of sacred scripture or revealed dogmas, and were far more liberal minded (and arguably even more principled) than most Christian leaders of the day, but they were still mystics and believers. Likewise, though the real Hypatia was indeed a brilliant mathematician, a talented astronomer, and a renowned philosophy professor (and yes, beautiful), she like many of her generation was more a compiler and commentator on past scientific glories, who attempted nothing original and certainly would not have been pursuing heliocentric theory. By all indications, that pursuit had been abandoned by then. Nor did she invent any scientific instruments as Wikipedia claims, although she was a master of many, an actual go-to girl for how to make them in her time (from astrolabes to hydrometers to monochords).
It also sounds like the film has her "trapped in the legendary Library of Alexandria" in the midst of Christian riots in the end, which suggests she is burned with the library, when in fact those riots burned the library's annex, the Serapeum. A great loss to the ancient written record to be sure (tens of thousands of books were destroyed), nevertheless the Great Library itself was far larger (hundreds of thousands of books) and probably survived this occasion (in any case, it would have been situated on the other side of the city). I worry the film might perpetuate this slight error, confusing one library for the other. I know there is a tendency to go for the better story rather than the truer one. And though many pagan intellectuals may have been killed in the Serapeum (the Christians destroyed it specifically to crush the cult--burning the books was not their object),.jpg)
Hypatia was not. She was killed far more hideously elsewhere in the city (and decades later). By at least one account she died as a result of a Christian mob "scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell." And not in a library, but inside a Christian Church--to which she was dragged naked through the streets. (Damn, I want to see Rachel Weisz naked as much as the next guy, but not like this!).
Historical worries aside (I haven't seen it yet, so some or all of my concerns may be unfounded), this could still be well worth seeing, as idealistic fiction if not history. I'll be eager to see it either way, and I'll report more fully when I do. In any case, since I'd like to see more films set in ancient Greece and Rome, it can't hurt to plug the ones there are. And though I can't vouch for anyone else involved, Weisz is certainly a talented actress.
The San Francisco Exploratorium has launched a new website on "Evidence: How We Know What We Know." I was interviewed some time ago for this new launch, and elements of that interview are now available on their site as a podcast. Go to their new project page (above), click "Enter the Site" and select the Podcasts option down on the right side. I'm the second guest. It's about eleven minutes on "Why do Nutcrackers Work? (and other historical questions of science)," where I talk about the ancient origins of modern scientific values and the meaning of this for today.
There was perhaps an hour of Q&A recorded, but only ten minutes were used. Though I understand the need of that, this did create some problems. The editor stitched together elements of my answers into a continuous lecture. So you don't hear the questions I'm answering, or the entirety of my answers, so it sounds like I'm just rambling from topic to topic. Hearing it back I found it a little confusing at times. For example, in the full discourse I would quicken my pace at points to emphasize certain things before and after, but if you just keep the middle bit it sounds like I'm just arbitrarily talking too fast. And the change of topics can seem odd this way, there being no context or explanation of why suddenly I'm talking about something else. For example, my explanation of who Ptolemy was and when he lived wasn't included, until later on in the podcast, so at first it sounds like I just out of the blue start talking about this Ptolemy guy.
But otherwise there are some gems in there, and in the other podcasts. There are also other cool things on that site that are great, though it's all mainly for kids and teens. Currently the site is about the introductory basics of evolution science, but emphasizing the neat cutting-edge stuff scientists are now doing in the field, and how they learn from it, rather than just giving you a class on evolution. The aim of the Exploratorium is to get people excited about science. So it tries to spy out what's exciting, rather than merely lecturing at you. And the How Do You Know? project is about how we know things, the basic underlying methodology and way of looking at data. Its inaugural test case is evolution (though my podcast isn't about that, just science in general). But cases from other sciences will be added over time.
This year I've read several really excellent books in my field. Three I'd like to share with you. Here in the past I wrote about my recommended Books on Ancient Science. The following are somewhat related to the same topic. All are highly recommended, at least if the subject material interests you in any bit. But I doubly recommend them not only because their scholarship is superb and thoroughly up-to-date (they currently have no peer), but also because they are so well written they read like a dream. Though all bog down occasionally in technicalia, those bumps and boggles are relatively scarce. Most of their content is easy to read, even delightful to read, and full of fascinating stories and facts. These are the kinds of authors I wish I were, and strive to be. All three books are entirely approachable to laymen, yet all are advanced, cutting-edge works, and will be required reading for experts in their respective subjects for decades to come.
It occurred to me recently that many of my fans might not know that I have several significant letters to the editor published in journals, and have appeared on many web radio shows, since none of these are listed anywhere else. So this post is for anyone who wants to obsessively read and hear everything significant of mine, and didn't know about my work in letters and radio.
Okay. So you want to learn about ancient science. Whatever should you read? Here is a short survey of what's worth the bother.
I read something today that just made me laugh. Pretty hard, at first. Then I thought about it...and lost a few sanity points. It's dark. So dark it almost passes from dark back into funny again. It sounds like something right out of a Douglas Adams novel...if it was made into a movie by Terry Gilliam. And yet it's totally true. I thought maybe some of you would laugh as much as I did at this bit of quirky, creepy trivia, and then feel just as icked. So here it is.
My picture is always a bit goofy. I look too young for my age, especially when I'm all smiles. See what I mean? Sure, I'm a young and happy guy, but I still get carded in bars even though I'm 36. Sometimes my photo gives people the wrong idea of who I am and what I'm about. So I originally chose a different avatar. I have since chosen another, based on a composite photo I developed for my new website. The following is my original post explaining the thought behind my previous avatar (which I used from 2006 on and retired in 2009):
No one will get it at first, just as no one will get me at first. But once you know what it is, you'll know a lot more about me than my own picture could tell you. 
The image is an x-ray scan of the Antikythera Machine, the first computer ever built by man...in the 1st century B.C. Yes, you read that right. The mechanism was recovered from a Roman shipwreck near Greece, shattered, rusted, and crusted over, but has since been reconstructed using CT scans and clever reverse engineering.
Last year I recorded a new lengthy interview for the Polyschizmatic Reprobates Hour on Rodney Stark's disastrously awful treatment of ancient science. Dan the Demented cut the show into three parts, the third on other topics, but the first two on Stark. Those two episodes are now up and available, on the PRH website and as podcasts. You can listen to them here: [Season 3 Episode 3] [Season 3 Episode 4]. Together this is essentially a two-part lambaste of Rodney Stark's embarrassing forray into ancient history, where I pillory his claim that Christianity made science possible, by educating the listener on the actual historical facts of Greco-Roman science (and technology). We quote his books For the Glory of God and The Victory of Reason and dissect their absurd falsehoods point-by-point. Each show runs 45 minutes.
The absurdly beautiful Rachel Weisz is playing the famous atheist and feminist icon, the late 4th century pagan philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria, in the epic film Agora by Alejandro Amenábar, which is projected to release in December, just before Christmas. According to Rueters, the film sounds like an interesting pro-atheist myth, exaggerating certain realities to convey a pro-science message against maniacal religious fundamentalism. Reviewers who have seen early edits give the impression that Hypatia is depicted as an atheist, and as an active scientific investigator on the verge of proving heliocentrism. An intriguing, perhaps inspiring idea. But fiction surely.
The best scholarly account of the facts can be found in Maria Dzielska's Hypatia of Alexandria (Harvard University: 1995). Hypatia was by all accounts a Neoplatonic theist, although the difference would be mild to most modern imaginations. Neoplatonists did not accept the notion of sacred scripture or revealed dogmas, and were far more liberal minded (and arguably even more principled) than most Christian leaders of the day, but they were still mystics and believers. Likewise, though the real Hypatia was indeed a brilliant mathematician, a talented astronomer, and a renowned philosophy professor (and yes, beautiful), she like many of her generation was more a compiler and commentator on past scientific glories, who attempted nothing original and certainly would not have been pursuing heliocentric theory. By all indications, that pursuit had been abandoned by then. Nor did she invent any scientific instruments as Wikipedia claims, although she was a master of many, an actual go-to girl for how to make them in her time (from astrolabes to hydrometers to monochords).
It also sounds like the film has her "trapped in the legendary Library of Alexandria" in the midst of Christian riots in the end, which suggests she is burned with the library, when in fact those riots burned the library's annex, the Serapeum. A great loss to the ancient written record to be sure (tens of thousands of books were destroyed), nevertheless the Great Library itself was far larger (hundreds of thousands of books) and probably survived this occasion (in any case, it would have been situated on the other side of the city). I worry the film might perpetuate this slight error, confusing one library for the other. I know there is a tendency to go for the better story rather than the truer one. And though many pagan intellectuals may have been killed in the Serapeum (the Christians destroyed it specifically to crush the cult--burning the books was not their object),.jpg)
Hypatia was not. She was killed far more hideously elsewhere in the city (and decades later). By at least one account she died as a result of a Christian mob "scraping her skin off with tiles and bits of shell." And not in a library, but inside a Christian Church--to which she was dragged naked through the streets. (Damn, I want to see Rachel Weisz naked as much as the next guy, but not like this!).
The San Francisco Exploratorium has launched a new website on "Evidence: How We Know What We Know." I was interviewed some time ago for this new launch, and elements of that interview are now available on their site as a podcast. Go to their new project page (above), click "Enter the Site" and select the Podcasts option down on the right side. I'm the second guest. It's about eleven minutes on "Why do Nutcrackers Work? (and other historical questions of science)," where I talk about the ancient origins of modern scientific values and the meaning of this for today.
But otherwise there are some gems in there, and in the other podcasts. There are also other cool things on that site that are great, though it's all mainly for kids and teens. Currently the site is about the introductory basics of evolution science, but emphasizing the neat cutting-edge stuff scientists are now doing in the field, and how they learn from it, rather than just giving you a class on evolution. The aim of the Exploratorium is to get people excited about science. So it tries to spy out what's exciting, rather than merely lecturing at you. And the How Do You Know? project is about how we know things, the basic underlying methodology and way of looking at data. Its inaugural test case is evolution (though my podcast isn't about that, just science in general). But cases from other sciences will be added over time.
This year I've read several really excellent books in my field. Three I'd like to share with you. Here in the past I wrote about my recommended Books on Ancient Science. The following are somewhat related to the same topic. All are highly recommended, at least if the subject material interests you in any bit. But I doubly recommend them not only because their scholarship is superb and thoroughly up-to-date (they currently have no peer), but also because they are so well written they read like a dream. Though all bog down occasionally in technicalia, those bumps and boggles are relatively scarce. Most of their content is easy to read, even delightful to read, and full of fascinating stories and facts. These are the kinds of authors I wish I were, and strive to be. All three books are entirely approachable to laymen, yet all are advanced, cutting-edge works, and will be required reading for experts in their respective subjects for decades to come.
My picture is always a bit goofy. I look too young for my age, especially when I'm all smiles. See what I mean? Sure, I'm a young and happy guy, but I still get carded in bars even though I'm 36. Sometimes my photo gives people the wrong idea of who I am and what I'm about. So I originally chose a different avatar. I have since chosen another, based on a composite photo I developed for my new website. The following is my original post explaining the thought behind my previous avatar (which I used from 2006 on and retired in 2009):
