dieadderalls

Yow, I love science, and I have some theories about some stuff that kind of relates across numerous fields. My work seeks to reconcile bypassed ideas with modern scientific ideas, by word manipulation and conceptual understanding. If context determines the kind of language used in a text, then does it not make sense to try and understand ancient/non-modern texts using ideas and concepts common to the time? Lots of people will simply dismiss ideas like astrology and occultism, but if Democritus hypothesised the theory of the atom based on logic alone (I believe he meant to call it a quark, but since he had little knowledge of science named it according to his understanding; an indivisible unit at the base of everything) and Eratosthenes worked out the circumference of the Earth, give or take 2,100 miles, we were doing alright in that time period. If people in that era understood, and if people and civilisations before that (pre-historic cultures) existed, I believe we should try and access all that knowledge, and attempt to understand it in conjunction with scientific theory. However I reject the ideas of pseudoscience and irrationality, I do want hard, scientific proof, yet I will still read a text that does not possess it, simply to understand the psychological disposition of the writer. Eh. Dieadderalls