upvote
It is not an uncommon view among scholars that humidity and age caused more papyri to be lost than the burning down of the library of Alexandria did. Many of which would have survived by being repeatedly copied and disseminated throughout the region.
reply
reply
People say this without any evidence. This ai-post is just regurgitating hn-thread "received wisdom". The evidence for the existence of a library is thin and hard to piece together, but points to more than a myth. I appreciate that people want real proof of anything, but dumping an ai-slop summary is hardly doing any better than accepting the existence of a large library.
reply
The Library almost certainly existed. It is the destruction (by deliberate fire) that is probably myth.
reply
Its destruction multiple times (in sieges and uncontrolled fires) is current historical consensus.
reply
The sieges and fires you are referring to were hundreds of years before the supposed destruction at the hands of Christian mobs (e.g. as depicted in the movie Agora or in Sagan’s Cosmos). The latter is unsupported.
reply
Historical consensus? So the non scientific view? Science is not consensus based.
reply
If you want to know what the science says on some topic, you have exactly two valid options:

1. Become an expert in said topic, reading the broad literature, becoming familiar with points and counterpoints, figuring out how research actually works in the field by contributing some papers of your own, and forming your own personal informed opinion on the preponderance of the evidence.

2. Look at the experts' consensus on said topic

Of course, you have other options. A popular one is to adopt the view of one expert in the field that you happen to like, who may or may not accept the consensus view - but this is far more arbitrary than 1 or 2.

reply
As a Canadian I love the US, think of them as family, but also view them as some sort of relative which has lost their senses. Before most recent times, we'd sadly shake our heads, as this relative does weird things, yet still hope for the best for them. Yet while rambling blathers about invading Canada and compelling 51st statehood would be fondly tolerated in grandpa, not so much for a nation with a massive army and a joy in using it.

So I purpose we strengthen another aspect of American "democracy" that Canadians find amusing, the concept of "hiring people for popularity not competency". Americans, especially at the local level, vote for judges, police chiefs, even dog-catchers, so why not a local scientist! Rather than 1 or 2, we can conjoin this concept with your third option, yet with the officiousness that only a vote can provide!

Each municipality can have a local head scientist, which will proclaim what scientific fact is correct. People can vote on such candidates, and their platform of scientifically correct "things" during election time.

It will all work out very well for them I'm sure, and hopefully, with science thus democratized, perhaps they will be less of a threat over time.

(Sorry, I don't know why your comment made this pop into my head)

reply
Why not just have them vote on the truth. That would be very entertaining and keep them all busy
reply
Of course science is consensus based ... consensus is a fundamental part of the scientific process, which is conducted by a community of scientists. Consensus is the end result of attempts at reproducibility and falsification, of the ongoing process by which scientists challenge the claims and purported findings of other scientists. Without it, all you have are assertions from which people can pick and choose based on their biases (as we see, for instance, with people who deny climate or vaccine science by cherrypicking claims).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus

https://skepticalscience.com/explainer-scientific-consensus....

https://tomhopper.me/2011/11/02/scientific-consensus/

And even if you reject consensus as being essential to science, calling the consensus view "the non scientific view" is obviously mistaken, a basic error in logic.

This is all well understood by working scientists so I'm not going to debate it or comment on it further.

reply
deleted
reply
This is a common refrain but in reality I'm not sure it made much difference. Papyrus just doesn't age well and most manuscripts from this era would've been on papyrus.

What really decided what texts survived and what didn't was monastic traditions in in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages [1]. At this time, a monk might spend their entire life transcribing a particularly long manuscript. The materials were also expensive. So monasteries were selective in what got retain and unsurprisingly it skewed heavily to texts of religious significance and then to texts of significance to, say, Roman and Greek tradition and history given that monasteries were European.

[1]: https://spokenpast.com/articles/medieval-monks-erased-preser...

reply
It was a little before that even.

Greek was the language of most fields of learning besides law in the Roman Empire. But the Greeks themselves wrote works on these papyrus scrolls that crumbled fast, so anything not actively used by the Romans was quickly lost.

There's a good chance that if the papyrus scrolls in any library (Alexandria or otherwise) weren't being copied regularly they were crumbling even before they burned or were lost to time for other reasons.

Towards the end of the Roman Empire, a few philosophers took the time to transmit Greek knowledge in Latin as knowledge of Greek faded in western Europe. What these guys happened to translate was the basis of most of European learning in philosophy, math, and other fields for centuries.

But they weren't monks (the most famous, Boethius, was not Christian either but a lot of later writers thought he was), the monks in scriptorium came later and grew slowly.

St. Benedict said that monks should be taught to read and do so regularly, which required copying books, but he prioritized physical work (to create self-sufficient communities) and prayer. But future Benedictines responded to the incentives of the time and began scaling up the copying and doing less agricultural work as the years went on.

reply
What’s the evidence Boethius wasn’t Christian? Wikipedia says he was.
reply
Thanks for sharing. Maybe not as common as you think. I never heard that before.
reply
It probably held a bunch of relatively boring local administrative records as far as "documents found only in the Library of Alexandria" from what I've read. Of course some scholars of the boring administrative history of the world would be thrilled though.
reply
As far as I know the vast majority of cuneiform we have is essentially administrative records, tax record and receipts. And homework.

That's the stuff that tells us how societies and cultures really worked.

reply
I don't discount the scholarly value of these works as you note. They provide a very important insight into these early and semi-documented societies but they don't have a visceral impact for the public like "The Hidden Mysteries of Things Previously Unknown" we accord to the Library of Alexandria in popular acclaim
reply
True, but sometimes something like the complaint tablet to Ea-Nasir[0] reaches meme status.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complaint_tablet_to_Ea-n%C4%81...

reply
Everybody knows it's under Uncle Scrooge's money bin. Spoiler alert.
reply
For some reason, there is a gigantic and ancient monastery on Mount Sinai with a commensurate collection of ancient manuscripts and papyri. Totally coincidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Catherine%27s_Monastery#...

How did all that stuff get up there? It was holy angels. #itsalwaysangels

reply
I don't get the point of this comment. What are you implying?
reply
those are certainly Christian curated documents. The previous six hundred+ years had seen the development of vivid and exotic religion, philosophy and arts. The Christians famously slew the Dragons, condemned Herod as a sorcerer and astrologer, and replaced the Apollo cults with the scripture that many know well.

I imagine that the Library of Alexandria was plural and diverse with respect to the traditions and inquiry that was represented there.

reply
The early Egyptian Christians were a particularly violent bunch. Lots of murders and political scheming against each other and other Christian authorities in the larger world of the Late Antique. They came to power in Alexandria by murder and looting, specifically
reply