The first thing that surprised me was how the Eurocentric view was very strong and kept ancient mathematical methods and studies veiled. With no prior knowledge in mathematical history, I was not familiar with it until today, when I learned that ancient views and discoveries from certain areas of the world were not treated as equally significant. I think knowledge builds on top of one another, and acknowledging various perspectives could have made it possible for more (and maybe earlier) discoveries.
The second thing that I thought was significant in this reading was how scholars went to Cordoba and Toledo for more discoveries in math. This search for new knowledge and inspiring ancient and contemporary work led to the spread in Western Europe, connecting and creating an impact on mathematicians in larger areas.
The third thing that surprised me, which also deeply connects to the previous, is how so many of the civilizations influenced each other. Chinese impacts on Arab mathematics to solve higher-order equations, Egyptian and Mesopotamian (Babylonian) knowledge influenced Greek math, Mesopotamian impacts on Indian astronomy, etc., all of which can be role models of current-day scientific research on learning from others and sharing knowledge with them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYour reflection shows a clear progression of thought — from being surprised at eurocentrism, to recognizing centers of learning like Cordoba and Toledo, to seeing the interconnectedness of civilizations. I especially liked your conclusion that these exchanges can serve as role models for today’s scientific collaboration. To make your reflection even stronger, you could add one example of how you might bring this interconnected view of math history into your own teaching practice.
ReplyDelete