The essentials of the intellectual game of man-against-nature are three.  First, you must collect observations about some facet of nature.  Second, you must organize these observations into an orderly array. (The organization does not alter them but merely makes them easier. to handle.  This is plain in the game of bridge, for instance, where arranging the hand in suits and order of value does not change the cards or show the best course of play, but makes it easier to arrive at the logical plays.) Third, you must derive from your orderly array of observations some principle that summarizes the observations.For instance, we may observe that marble sinks in water, wood floats, iron sinks, a feather floats, mercury sinks, olive oil floats, and so on.  If we put all the sinkable objects in one list and all the floatable ones in another and look for a characteristic that differentiates all the objects in one group from all in the other, we will conclude: Heavy objects sink in water and.ligbt objects float.

The Greeks named their new manner of studying the universe philosophia ("philosophy"), meaning "love of knowledge" or, in free translation, "the desire to know."

The Greeks achieved their most brilliant successes in geometry.  These successes can be attributed mainly to their development of two techniques: abstraction and generalization.

Here is an example.  Egyptian land surveyors had found a practical way to form a right angle: they divided a rope into twelve equal parts and made a triangle in which three parts formed one side, four parts an-other, and five parts the third side-the right angle lay where the three-unit side joined the four-unit side.  There is no record of how the Egyptians discovered this method, and apparently their interest went no further than to make use of it.  But the curious Greeks went on to in-vestigate why such a triangle should contain a right angle.  In the course of their analysis, they grasped the point that the physical construction itself was only incidental; it did not matter whether the triangle was made of rope or linen or wooden slats.  It was simply a property of "straight lines" meeting at angles.  In conceiving of ideal straight lines, which were independent of any physical visualization and could exist only in imagination, they originated the method called abstraction-stripping away nonessentials and considering only those properties nec-essary to the solution of the problem.
The Greek geometers made another advance by seeking general solutions for classes of problems, instead of treating individual problems separately.  For instance, one might discover by trial that a right angle appeared in triangles, not only with sides 3, 4, and 5 feet long, but also in those of 5, 12, and 13 feet and of 7, 24, and 25 feet.  But these were merely numbers without meaning.  Could some common property be found that would describe all right triangles?  By careful reasoning the

Greeks showed that a triangle was a right triangle if, and only if, the lengths of the sides had the relation x2 + y2 = z2, Z being the length of  the 
longest   side.  The right angle lay where the sides of length x and y met.  Thus for the triangle with sides of 3, 4, and 5 feet, squaring the sides 
gives 9 + 16 = 25; s'm'larly, squaring the sides

I I of 5, 12, and 13 dives 25 + 144 = 169; and squaring 7, 24, and 25 gives 49 + 576 = 625.

T hese are only three cases out of an infinity of possible ones and, as such,
  What intrigued the Greeks was the discovery of a proof that the relation must hold in all cases.  And they pursued geometry as an elegant means of discovering and formulating generalizations.' Various Greek mathematicians contributed proofs of relationships existing among the lines and points of geometric figures.  The one inolving the right triangle was reputedly worked out by Pythagoras of Samos about 525 B.c. and is still called the Pythagorean theorem in his honor'
about 300 B.c., Euclid gathered the mathematical theorems known in his time and arranged them in a reasonable order, such that each theorem could be proved through the use of theorems proved previously.  Naturally, this system eventually worked back to something unprovable: If each theorem had to be proved with the help of one already proved, how could one prove theorem No. I? The solution was to begin with a statement of truths so obvious and acceptable to all as to need no proof.  Such a statement is called an "axiom." Euclid managed to reduce the accepted axioms of the day to a few simple statements.  From these axioms alone, he built an intricate and ajestic system of "Euclidean geometry." Never was so much constructed so well from so little, and Euclid's reward is that his textbook has remained in use, with but minor modification, for more than 2,000 years.

Working out a body of knowledge as the inevitable consequence of a set of axioms ("deduction") is an attractive game.  The Greeks fell in love with it, thanks to the success of their geometry-sufficiently in love with it to commit two serious errors.
First, they came to consider deduction as the only respectable eans of attaining knowledge.  They were well aware that for some kinds
0f knowledge deduction was inadequate; for instance, the distance from Corinth to Athens could not be deduced from abstract principles but bad to be measured.  The Greeks were willing to look at nature when necessary; however, they were always ashamed of the necessity and con-sidered that the highest type of knowledge was that arrived at by cere-bration.  They tended to undervalue knowledge which was too directly involved with everyday life.  There is a story that a student of Plato, re-ceiving mathematical instruction from the master, finally asked im-patiently: "But what is the use of all this?" Plato, deeply offended, called a slave and ordered him to give the student a coin.  "Now," he