Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,500   Posts: 1,571,610   Online: 1264
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21
    M.A.Longmore's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New York
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,857
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Ray Rogers View Post
    AAAP? (Atheism And Analog Photography)
    or
    APUG? (Atheist's Photography Users Group)
    .
    Thanks Ray !

    Private Group Created : A.P.U.G., Atheist Photographers Users Group.


    Ron
    .



  2. #22

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Shropshire, UK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    829
    Images
    7
    Interesting article,

    and yep, count me in for an atheist group, too ;-)
    Steve

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Credit to whom it is due: Alhazen is an important guy.
    He however also was about 15 - 16 centuries late in making the first camera obscura.

    Much of his contribution to the scientific method too was something he learned from people who lived many, many centuries earlier.

    But still!
    That's true, but he was the first to formalise it...
    I guess you have a lot of spare time when under house arrest for 10 years!!

  4. #24
    holmburgers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Rochester NY (native KS)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,423
    Images
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by AgX View Post
    "The Optics of Ibn Al-Haytham: On Direct Vision
    Bks.1-3 (Studies of the Warburg Institute)"

    735 pages
    Publisher: Warburg Institute (1989)
    ISBN: 0854810727
    thanks Agx
    If you are the big tree, we are the small axe

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by neilpcraven View Post
    That's true, but he was the first to formalise it...
    As far as we know, perhaps.
    But we don't even know whether he is as far as we know.

    The fact that these things were described so many centuries before already, by men who were not to be sniffed at either, would make it highly improbable (but still possible) that he would be the first to sit down with some paper and a pencil, to decribe how i works. Let alone figure out how it works.

    But that doesn't detract anything from the imprtance of this guy.
    Even the unoriginal stuff from ages before the age of Alhazen we had to have brought to us by people repeating it, embellishing and improving while they went along.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron LarFor4X5 View Post
    Private Group Created : A.P.U.G., Atheist Photographers Users Group.
    Is that a group for people who use atheist photographers for something or other?
    Or?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    (scientific method)

    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    The fact that these things were described so many centuries before already, by men who were not to be sniffed at either, would make it highly improbable (but still possible) that he would be the first to sit down with some paper and a pencil, to decribe how i works. Let alone figure out how it works.
    On the other hand, *somebody* had to be the first, and the classical Greeks whose work he was building on weren't big on abstracting their methods---especially the "natural philosophers" who really could be seen as laying the groundwork for the modern experimentalist view of the scientific method. (The pure mathematicians sound more like their modern counterparts, but then as now the mathematicians seem to have been widely felt to have a screw loose.)

    Remember, too, that while those earlier thinkers look like contemporaries to us and probably did to ibn al-Haytham, they weren't really. It's not like Galen and Euclid and Aristotle ever had the opportunity to sit down over coffee and say "Now, what is it we're really doing here, gentlemen?" and synthesise a clear model of their working methods.

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    (scientific method)



    On the other hand, *somebody* had to be the first, and the classical Greeks whose work he was building on weren't big on abstracting their methods---especially the "natural philosophers" who really could be seen as laying the groundwork for the modern experimentalist view of the scientific method. (The pure mathematicians sound more like their modern counterparts, but then as now the mathematicians seem to have been widely felt to have a screw loose.)

    Remember, too, that while those earlier thinkers look like contemporaries to us and probably did to ibn al-Haytham, they weren't really. It's not like Galen and Euclid and Aristotle ever had the opportunity to sit down over coffee and say "Now, what is it we're really doing here, gentlemen?" and synthesise a clear model of their working methods.
    Hmm... I don't know.
    Aristotle, for one, had all the time in the world to do that. In fact, that's about all he ever did.
    It was his work the arabic world elaborated on. And it was his work, when mediated by the arabic thinkers, sparked the modern science thing over here.

    There are many difference between us now and them 1000 and 2500 thousand years ago.
    But we really are not that different as you appear to suggest at all.

    So in short: i disagree. You're mostly wrong.

    (I disagree too about the role you assign to the early natural philosphers. But that's another thread. Another forum perhaps.)

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,286
    Images
    21
    It's not like Galen and Euclid and Aristotle ever had the opportunity to sit down over coffee and say "Now, what is it we're really doing here, gentlemen?" and synthesise a clear model of their working methods.
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Hmm... I don't know.
    Aristotle, for one, had all the time in the world to do that.
    Not with people who weren't alive at the same time he was, he didn't! (OK, Aristotle and Euclid overlapped slightly, but my point is that we take the people of several centuries and look back on them as if they were a single remarkable working group.)

    -NT
    Nathan Tenny
    San Diego, CA, USA

    The lady of the house has to be a pretty swell sort of person to put up with the annoyance of a photographer.
    -The Little Technical Library, _Developing, Printing, And Enlarging_

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by ntenny View Post
    Not with people who weren't alive at the same time he was, he didn't! (OK, Aristotle and Euclid overlapped slightly, but my point is that we take the people of several centuries and look back on them as if they were a single remarkable working group.)
    Yes.
    But's it's not that wrong at all to do so. Despite our optimistic view of ourselves, we have progressed very little since the earliest times we know of.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin