I could write something long and detailed, but you will remain unconvinced.
Earliest evidence of systematic scientific thinking is Aristotle's Analytica Posteriora, (`340 BC) in which is discussed systems of demonstration definition to attain scientific knowledge. His work is (mildly) marred by his belief in empiricism, that only true knowledge could be obtained by direct observation, that deduced (or in his term, induced) knowledge did not pass the test of truth.
Epicurus (`250 BC) laid out some of the first rules for proposing what we would now call a hypothesis, to come up with something that has not yet been observed.
Lucretius (`55 BC I believe) in Rome publishes "On the Nature of Things" a poem laying out Epicurus work and methods, focusing on axioms and comparative and parallel comparative philosophy.
Here, during the middle ages, the focus moves to early Muslim scientists like al-Kindi (801–873) and the writings of an author going by the name of Jābir ibn Hayyān (writings dated to 850–950), who may have been a collective of authors. The writings include a larger emphasis on experimentation, especially repetitive experimentation as a means of obtaining scientific truth.
While not perfect, these writings contain contain the oldest known systematic classification of chemical substances, and the oldest known instructions for deriving an inorganic compounds from organic substances (such as plants, blood, and hair) by chemical means.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) used these same methods put forth by other Muslim philosophers, using experimentation to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021). He combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to support his theory of vision, in which rays of light are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes, proving an argument by Aristotle, that objects emitted particles pertinent to sight, false.
There is a lot of other influence from throughout the world on the development of the scientific method, from the writings of Hindu philosophers in India about the cosmology of the universe and Chinese philosophers who used a similar method of deductive reasoning, but never codified it into a step-by-step process the way that Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes did. But to discount the influence on scientific thinking by other cultures is not being intellectually honest.
(most of this is excerpts from my Masters thesis, just in case you think AI did it, I too work in academia, but I do not have such a negative view of my profession as you seem to.)
Systematic ways of examining a problem and the steps did not come around all at once and certainly without the influence of people other than white people.
Believe whatever you want about my writing. I don't care
Why would I lie when it is easily fact checked.
I could write something long and detailed, but you will remain unconvinced.
Earliest evidence of systematic scientific thinking is Aristotle's Analytica Posteriora, (`340 BC) in which is discussed systems of demonstration definition to attain scientific knowledge. His work is (mildly) marred by his belief in empiricism, that only true knowledge could be obtained by direct observation, that deduced (or in his term, induced) knowledge did not pass the test of truth.
Epicurus (`250 BC) laid out some of the first rules for proposing what we would now call a hypothesis, to come up with something that has not yet been observed.
Lucretius (`55 BC I believe) in Rome publishes "On the Nature of Things" a poem laying out Epicurus work and methods, focusing on axioms and comparative and parallel comparative philosophy.
Here, during the middle ages, the focus moves to early Muslim scientists like al-Kindi (801–873) and the writings of an author going by the name of Jābir ibn Hayyān (writings dated to 850–950), who may have been a collective of authors. The writings include a larger emphasis on experimentation, especially repetitive experimentation as a means of obtaining scientific truth.
While not perfect, these writings contain contain the oldest known systematic classification of chemical substances, and the oldest known instructions for deriving an inorganic compounds from organic substances (such as plants, blood, and hair) by chemical means.
Ibn al-Haytham (Alhazen) used these same methods put forth by other Muslim philosophers, using experimentation to obtain the results in his Book of Optics (1021). He combined observations, experiments and rational arguments to support his theory of vision, in which rays of light are emitted from objects rather than from the eyes, proving an argument by Aristotle, that objects emitted particles pertinent to sight, false.
There is a lot of other influence from throughout the world on the development of the scientific method, from the writings of Hindu philosophers in India about the cosmology of the universe and Chinese philosophers who used a similar method of deductive reasoning, but never codified it into a step-by-step process the way that Francis Bacon and Rene Descartes did. But to discount the influence on scientific thinking by other cultures is not being intellectually honest.
(most of this is excerpts from my Masters thesis, just in case you think AI did it, I too work in academia, but I do not have such a negative view of my profession as you seem to.)
No no, not "systematic thinking" which people have been doing since time immemorial, but the "scientific method".
sigh
Great essay you let AI write for you as well.
Systematic ways of examining a problem and the steps did not come around all at once and certainly without the influence of people other than white people.
Believe whatever you want about my writing. I don't care
Conflating "systematic thinking" with the "scientific method" is eliding and muddling the issue. They are two separate things.
And it's not your writing, it's an AI.
You're wasting my time at this point, with your copy/paste replies. You're missing the most important citation anyway. I leave the last word to you.