T3D Re: From Euclid to Wheatstone

[abram klooswyk <abram.klooswyk@xxxxxx>]

I didn't expect it was so easy! Just post a few provocative 
statements and you get the discussion just where you like it
most :-) :-)

To William Carter I would say that I'm sure he will agree that we
should distingsh between:
- binocular phenomena in general and binocular depth perception
- awareness of space and awareness of binocular depth perception
  or stereoscopic vision
- binocular distance perception and binocular depth perception
- making pictures using perspective or ray tracing and making
  twin-view stereo pictures or drawings
- three-dimensional sculpture or architecture and 3-D stereoscopic
  imaging with twin-view flat pictures (stereoscopy).

William quotes from an on-line editorial, which speaks of cultural
arrogance. It is pretty funny (:-)) that this guest editorial (by 
Allan Gilchrist of Rutgers University) is from the same (printed) 
issue of "Perception" as the articles by Howard and Wade I referred 
to (on 27 sep 1998 t3d digest 368).
This was a whole historical issue on the neglect of 'alien' work :-)
reminding of NIBU (Not Invented By Us).
Allan Gilchrist however did not only or especially discuss arrogance 
towards non-western science, but for example also that "The Americans 
showed a mocking contempt of European [especially German, AK] 
`talk of the mind', and they were supremely confident that their 
approach would establish the scientific basis of psychology". 
But: "None of this should suggest that German psychology per se was 
superior to its American counterpart or that cultural arrogance is 
peculiarly American". He also mentiones [the] "intense cultural 
arrogance in the form of fascism" [in Germany, AK]. 

What Gilchrist does NOT say, but maybe should have done, is that 
"None of this should suggest that non-western science per se was 
superior to its Western counterpart", as some in the West seem 
to suggest.
Gilchrist does say however: "Neglect of European work on perception 
is not entirely a thing of the past". So that leaves some room for
sweeping translations from my Dutch papers (:-)).

I have quoted a phrase from the paper of Howard AND Wade (27 sep 1998
t3d digest 368) to show that in my opinion they BOTH agree on the 
fact that Howard's historical work on Alhazen did not change the facts
of Wheatstone's priorities.
The historical issue of "Perception" however also contained a splendid
paper by Nicholas J Wade: "Descriptions of visual phenomena from 
Aristotle to Wheatstone" Perception 1996 vol 25 pp 1137-1175, 
in which he presents selected historical descriptions in quotations
of numerous authors, including Alhazen.
In his introduction he writes, after distinghishing between
(geometrical)optics and perception, and mentioning attemps to resolve
the incompatibilities between them:

"In the case of size perception this occurred early, in the writings of
Ptolemy (c150), and then of Ibn al-Haytham (referred to as Alhazen in
Latin translations of his work) in the 11th century. For binocular depth
perception its appreciation was delayed until the stereoscope was 
invented by Wheatstone in the 1830s."

Now I am sorry to say that I cannot always follow the pace of these
lists, I would suggest to make it monthly or quaterly, so that I can 
get some time to formulate ideas :-). I have a job, a family and
other interests (:-)). In the mean time, as I have heared from civil 
lawyers (some in my family), I admit nothing and dispute everything, 
but are open to negotiations :-).

Abram Klooswyk


------------------------------

End of TECH-3D Digest 370
*************************