In his Atlantic article titled “Stop Calling the Babylonians Scientists,” journalist Philip Ball argues that “science” isn’t a useful observer’s category for understanding what Babylonian astronomers were doing. Read his article and chapter 2 of McClellan and Dorn, and then write a paper that addresses these questions: Do McClellan and Dorn agree with Ball? Do you agree with Ball? Why or why not? And if Ball is correct, do you think “science” is a useful observer’s category for what Greek natural philosophers were doing? Be sure to define the term “observer’s category” and acknowledge its source
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/02/babylonians-scientists/462150/
