PDA

View Full Version : Why did scientific study take off?



Peerie Maa
03-18-2015, 06:22 AM
On another thread Peb said

TomF, Very good points. I would add two other things which provide your correct view that the Church has always been deeply involved in education because of care for the poor and dispossessed.
The Church has always been deeply involved in education because the Christian philosophy so deeply values education and learning and understanding of all things. There is a reason why modern science evolved in Christendom.
And to tie your point together with mine, is that the Church has always been such a radically democratic institution. There is no knowledge that cannot benefit all.

Which I take issue with.

Many cultures made scientific advances, that is why so many words of Arabic origin are embedded in maths and science. Hindus invented "0" which is a great enabler, so why did scientific study accelerate in Europe when it did?

Why did it not advance in other cultures?

skuthorp
03-18-2015, 06:28 AM
"…………..so why did scientific study accelerate in Europe when it did?
Why did it not advance in other cultures?"
'The enlightenment', the gradual separation of church and state. Possibly the success of Protestantism as well as a reaction to the oppressiveness, excess and corruption of the Roman church.

Duncan Gibbs
03-18-2015, 06:37 AM
Jeff has nailed it in one.

There was also the aspect of the huge Moorish influence on Europe before the Renaissance, particularly the vast libraries of Spain that helped things along as works were translated from Arabic into Latin and the main European languages.

The Reformation perhaps provided a crack in the power of Christianity over scientific endeavour that became unstoppable as the flow of inquiry through it turned into a torrent.

Peerie Maa
03-18-2015, 06:45 AM
"…………..so why did scientific study accelerate in Europe when it did?
Why did it not advance in other cultures?"
'The enlightenment', the gradual separation of church and state. Possibly the success of Protestantism as well as a reaction to the oppressiveness, excess and corruption of the Roman church.

I don't think that Protestant churches were any less conservative/reactionary than the Catholic church once they became settled. Young Earth Creationism is as strong in Northern Ireland protestantism as it is in the US.

Duncan Gibbs
03-18-2015, 06:55 AM
I don't think that Protestant churches were any less conservative/reactionary than the Catholic church once they became settled. Young Earth Creationism is as strong in Northern Ireland protestantism as it is in the US.
Because they were young churches and had more on their hands dealing with the Catholic Church, this provided the opportunity for science and exploration to thrive in Northern Protestant Europe in particular. How do you think Descartes would have managed if he'd stayed in France?

Peerie Maa
03-18-2015, 07:04 AM
Because they were young churches and had more on their hands dealing with the Catholic Church, this provided the opportunity for science and exploration to thrive in Northern Protestant Europe in particular. How do you think Descartes would have managed if he'd stayed in France?

May be it was more about Enlightened absolutism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_absolutism) than the weakness of the Protestant churches.

George.
03-18-2015, 07:21 AM
I agree that it was the cracks created by the reformation and religious diversity in Europe that allowed non-religious ways of thinking like science to develop.

Other than that, science helped Europeans navigate to distant lands and win wars. Those in power noticed, and pragmatically adopted its method.

Peerie Maa
03-18-2015, 07:25 AM
I agree that it was the cracks created by the reformation and religious diversity in Europe that allowed non-religious ways of thinking like science to develop.

Other than that, science helped Europeans navigate to distant lands and win wars. Those in power noticed, and pragmatically adopted its method.

The flip side of the coin is why did cultures like the Chinese (with whom we traded and exposed to our technology) not do so?

Duncan Gibbs
03-18-2015, 07:28 AM
They didn't see the practical application at the time. Note that they haven't made the same mistake this time around.

Paul Pless
03-18-2015, 07:49 AM
There is a reason why modern science evolved in Christendom.maybe peb is right

modern science evolved as a backlash against the church

Peerie Maa
03-18-2015, 07:51 AM
They didn't see the practical application at the time. Note that they haven't made the same mistake this time around.

OK delve deeper. Why did they not see the . . . . .

It was not christian conservatism.

Flying Orca
03-18-2015, 08:21 AM
I wonder whether linguistic rigidity plays a role. It seems to me that it might be easier to combine symbols into new concepts in a young, elastic language with more exceptions than rules, and the dominant Chinese languages have been around for a while. I think there's also something inward-looking about Chinese culture - note the difference between their voyages of discovery and those of the west.

P.I. Stazzer-Newt
03-18-2015, 08:30 AM
Why did the stream of advances seen in Arab and Persian countries stop dead?

Chris Coose
03-18-2015, 08:42 AM
so why did scientific study accelerate in Europe when it did?



Humanity in that region of the planet hit bottom as a result of the dark ages.
Some poor bastard wakes up one day and says to himself, "This hair shirt I've worn all my life is sh!t". He takes it off and he can't help but feel liberated and never to be confined by some medieval doctrine again.
I had to go through the same thing about 1962. That's nuts!

George.
03-18-2015, 09:02 AM
The flip side of the coin is why did cultures like the Chinese (with whom we traded and exposed to our technology) not do so?

One central all-powerful state, interested in maintaining the status quo. Europe had multiple states competing in trade, in navigation and in war. Evolution needs diversity and competition.

Keith Wilson
03-18-2015, 09:05 AM
The flip side of the coin is why did cultures like the Chinese (with whom we traded and exposed to our technology) not do so?They did, up to a point. They had a highly advanced civilization when Europe was a bunch of hairy illiterate smelly barbarians squatting on the ruins of the Roman Empire. I think the problem may have been philosophical; Confucianism is very, very conservative in the literal sense, revering ancestors and the past. Unity and absolute rule can be stifling. They do seem to be making up for lost time; maybe we should check back in two or three hundred years.

Jim Mahan
03-18-2015, 09:25 AM
...so why did scientific study accelerate in Europe when it did? Why did it not advance in other cultures?

There was also the aspect of the huge Moorish influence on Europe before the Renaissance, particularly the vast libraries of Spain that helped things along as works were translated from Arabic into Latin and the main European languages.

Because also the barbarians in Europe, resisting the Romans the Greeks and the Phoenicians, Persians and other important stuff around the mediterranean, disdained and trashed everything developed in the region by those folks, and commenced a dark ages from which there must have eventually been born a renaissance and an enlightenment that would have been orders of magnitude more advanced had they not.

Those Europeans, Vikings and Celts and Visigoths, etc., must have been conservatives. :eek:

Phillip Allen
03-18-2015, 09:34 AM
was it the effect of marketing? (to the question in the op)

George.
03-18-2015, 09:43 AM
They do seem to be making up for lost time; maybe we should check back in two or three hundred years.

You mean once the French Revolution has run its course? ;) :D

Keith Wilson
03-18-2015, 10:04 AM
You mean once the French Revolution has run its course? ;):DHmm. Will the Chinese have a revolution against the current regime? And what would replace it? That's an excellent exercise in futile prognostication, which probably requires a couple of bottles of good Chilean red to lubricate the discussion. :D

Or, thinking about it a bit more, you mean the modern West is still the aftermath of the French Revolution?

Dan McCosh
03-18-2015, 10:08 AM
Biological science was based on grave robbing. Mechanical engineering, modern physics, and chemistry are based on wars. Astronomy is bedded in colonialism.

Jim Mahan
03-18-2015, 10:12 AM
It's Leonardo DaVinci's fault.

Phillip Allen
03-18-2015, 10:15 AM
It's Leonardo DaVinci's fault.

can't be... science is not ideas but only facts... I heard that right here

George.
03-18-2015, 10:37 AM
Hmm. Will the Chinese have a revolution against the current regime? And what would replace it? That's an excellent exercise in futile prognostication, which probably requires a couple of bottles of good Chilean red to lubricate the discussion. :D

Or, thinking about it a bit more, you mean the modern West is still the aftermath of the French Revolution?

I was alluding in jest to Mao saying is to early to tell how the French Revolution turned out.

George.
03-18-2015, 10:38 AM
can't be... science is not ideas but only facts... I heard that right here

Science is ideas based on facts.

TomF
03-18-2015, 10:41 AM
It's Leonardo DaVinci's fault.Maybe. But it must be in code.

Phillip Allen
03-18-2015, 10:43 AM
Science is ideas based on facts.

that still leaves DaVinci out

Paul Pless
03-18-2015, 10:47 AM
can't be... science is not ideas but only facts...

science is a process or methodology of organizing information - that's it, whether practiced by an individual or by humanity; in many ways science is a journey


I heard that right here

Have you ever thought that you might be both better served yourself and serve your fellow man better, if you were to lose those chips on your shoulder and stop the constant game of 'gotcha' that you try to play? (and play poorly by the way)

TomF
03-18-2015, 10:49 AM
that still leaves DaVinci outWhy?

I don't think of ol' Leo as primarily a scientist, but he was certainly an anatomist. Not a bad ideas guy in engineering too, though the prototyping and development work didn't always go to a plan.

Paul Pless
03-18-2015, 10:52 AM
Why?

I don't think of ol' Leo as primarily a scientist, but he was certainly an anatomist. Not a bad ideas guy in engineering too, though the prototyping and development work didn't always go to a plan.

absolutely he was a scientist - he used and advanced scientific principles as inventor of scientific principles, practices and instruments

John of Phoenix
03-18-2015, 10:55 AM
There is a reason why modern science evolved in Christendom.
maybe peb is right

modern science evolved as a backlash against the churchIt's like so many other things that are taboo - an irresistible lure for some. After what the church did to Galileo and his cohorts a bunch of guys started saying, "Here, hold my beer and watch this." Now we're in deep outer space.

TomF
03-18-2015, 10:56 AM
absolutely he was a scientist - he used and advanced scientific principles as inventor of scientific principles, practices and instrumentsNo question.

But for all his varied genius (scientific and otherwise), I don't think of Leo as mostly a science dude. Even when I look at his sketches and notebooks showing the things you've described, what stuns me is their beauty and craftsmanship. For all that they're also records of his invention/use of scientific principles.

John of Phoenix
03-18-2015, 10:58 AM
:D Oh dear God! :D I've hurt myself! :D

:D Now allen thinks he's smarter than Da Vinci. :D

TomF
03-18-2015, 11:02 AM
Oh, and I think folks are doing Peb a disservice. Nobody with a pinch of historical veracity would claim that the Church didn't impede some kinds of scientific study - and some branches of the Church still do. Not the RC Church these days, but others.

At the same time, pls. remember that modern Universities exist because the Church created and funded them. That the universities and monasteries were themselves keen centres of research and inquiry, creating the conditions within which later secular scientific (and other kinds) of research could occur.

It is a gross mis-statement to claim that the Church is the sole source of the emergence of science ... but as gross a mis-statement to claim that the Church's impact has been uniformly regressive and obstructionist. Whether in the past, or the present.

Phillip Allen
03-18-2015, 11:11 AM
absolutely he was a scientist - he used and advanced scientific principles as inventor of scientific principles, practices and instruments

peer reviewed?

John Smith
03-18-2015, 11:12 AM
Interesting question. What was the first "science"? Was it the wheel? Was it fire? was it a sharp pointed limb forming a weapon?

My guess is when people saw the wheel as making life a bit easier, other people saw it as the devil's work. I can remember people saying, "If God wanted us to fly, He'd have given us wings." Kind of a constant battle.

Generally, people like things that make life better or healthier; things that make travel faster, ease pain, cure disease, etc., so science seems to win most of these battles.

switters
03-18-2015, 11:26 AM
Biological science was based on grave robbing. Mechanical engineering, modern physics, and chemistry are based on wars. Astronomy is bedded in colonialism.


Bingo, with one exception I would like to add. Power was projected through architecture, a lot of math came from solving architectural problems. the very first mention of Pi (in concept not by name nitpickers) is in the old testament, used to build a temple.

TomF
03-18-2015, 11:30 AM
Phillip, Leo didn't really have many peers, eh? :D.

Tom Wilkinson
03-18-2015, 11:31 AM
peer reviewed?

You just can't help it can you?

Paul Pless
03-18-2015, 11:33 AM
I think it worth noting that the rise of science, and a whole lot of other areas of growth of knowledge, especially as related to Europe, coincides with the expansion of global trade;and with it exposure to new ideas. Its an intensely interrelated and broad subject - take shipping for instance. A broad subject on its own, but scientific curiosity was involved in developing new boat and ship design, navigation, study of weather, interpretation of languages, diplomacy (on a societal and on a intensely individual point of view), I can go on ad nauseum. . .

Paul Pless
03-18-2015, 11:34 AM
You just can't help it can you?Tourette's.

John of Phoenix
03-18-2015, 11:37 AM
Tourette's.Dunning-Kruger.

S.V. Airlie
03-18-2015, 11:48 AM
The printing press; 1460ish!

BrianY
03-18-2015, 12:14 PM
One of the many reasons why eastern cultures stopped advancing technology-wise while western Christian cultures took off has a lot to do with the philosophical/religious foundations of the societies. To put it in a simplistic but easily typed way, eastern cultures were/are based on philosophical/religious foundations that stress the transient nature of the world and material goods, the temporary and cyclical nature of life and the idea that things will be better in the next life if one focuses on one's spiritual growth. In addition, there is a strong conservative tendency which stresses adherence to moral and social norms including social status and obedience to ones elders. The result is that there is little pressure/incentive or even tolerance for deviation from the ways of the past, the accumulation of personal wealth and material goods and disruption of the established social order - all things which can drive technological innovation.

Western Christian culture - Protestant culture in particular - on the other hand has stressed the opposite things. Protestants viewed the accumulation of personal wealth as a sign of a person's worthiness in God's eye. They also believed in the idea of creating "heaven on earth" and "making Jerusalem in the wilderness"- a pursuit that inevitably drove technological innovation as people sought to subdue and bend Nature to their (and God's) will. The expansion of Protestantism in the New World meant that people had the freedom to rebel against tradition and social norms - folks could pack up and establish their own settlements if they didn't like how things were being run. Less restrictive societies meant that people had the freedom to innovate and develop their ideas and pursue lines of inquiry without fear of reprisal by the establishment.

There are, of course many other reasons for the difference, including:

- The invention of the printing pres meant that information and ideas could be spread and shared far more easily than ever and more people could achieve some level of education than in the East.
- The expansionist/colonial impulse in Europe that was not present in the East (or at least hadn't been present for a long time) and the resulting conflicts between nations provided great incentives for technological advances in transportation, navigation and arms.
-The way that the New World was settled and land divided up gave great incentive for the children of second generation settlers to develop technology-based businesses and industries rather than farming for their livelihoods.
- Eastern cultures also enjoyed large populations which meant that there was/is abundance manual labor available for farming and all sorts of construction projects, therefore reducing the need for technological innovation in these areas. However, limited populations among Europeans in the New World encouraged technological innovations in these areas.


but underlying all of this was a basic difference in how Westerners and Easterners perceived the world, the universe and man's place in it which affected the drive/need/ability to innovate.

Jim Mahan
03-18-2015, 12:24 PM
the very first mention of Pi

Post dark ages, and a millenium of conservative rapture over scripture vice curiosity, speculation, and library burning.

Keith Wilson
03-18-2015, 12:27 PM
FWIW, movable type was invented in China during the Northern Song Dynasty, sometime around 1040 (link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_printing_in_East_Asia#Ceramic_movable_t ype_in_China)), first wood, then ceramic, then bronze.

S.V. Airlie
03-18-2015, 12:29 PM
I'm talking Europe! China had many things not found in Europe a lot earlier! Literally, different worlds!

peb
03-18-2015, 12:43 PM
My claim is that modern science evolved in Christendom. I did not claim there was no scientific advances made in other cultures. Indeed, one of the reasons that modern science came to fruition during the renaissance period was the Christian willingness to accept what was good out of other cultures. But that is not the primary reason.
There are two ways of looking at this: one is the practical history of the matter, and the other is the philosophical. Both point to the same conclusion: namely that modern science specifically developed due to a Christian culture.
Some brief statements on comments already made on the thread:
1) it developed due to the age of enlightenment: you guys need to look at the timing of events. Modern science was will out of the crib prior to the time of enlightenment
2) It had to do with the reformation fracturing the Church's control: not true. Again, the early advances in the renaissance in philosophy and science had already taken form and the protestant reformers were actually quite hostile to it all. There was a "hint" of fundamentalism in the very early days. It was Luther said "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has".
3) It had to do with the printing press: this did make a difference and is worth noting.

As to the practical history of the matter:

1) it was the Church where the great universities developed. These universities early on had areas oaf study in the natural philosophies (ie science). These universities had scholarly debates from across Europe on all areas of study. It was a remarkable event in history.
2) The Church's patronage of science was immense throughout the late middle ages well into the age of enlightenment
3) Many, many members of the clergy spent time in studying natural philosophy from the 11th century on. And then you had the Jesuits: there was never an organization which had so many members devote themselves to a life of scientific study and defend the needs of it



The philosophical aspects:
Christianity has held that God created an ordered universe. The understanding of the order of the universe was good. The need of technical progress in order to benefit mankind was well understood by late middle ages. The Church has always held there can be no conflict between faith and reason, hence in Christendom there was no ingrained or institutionalized fear of scientific endeavor. All of this led to culture from which science could form.

Yes the amount of scientific discovery exploded well after the period I am describing, but it was built on the shoulders of what was done during the middle ages and Christendom. And it was accomplished in a Christian culture that was still largely intact.

The science of Islam? Very impressive in many aspects, but stillborn.

Paul Pless
03-18-2015, 12:48 PM
peb, have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel?

S.V. Airlie
03-18-2015, 12:50 PM
You can't have any of that until the common man had access to relatively cheap, and extensive books that they could get their hands on. Without the printing press and previously relying on handwritten tombs, nothing would have occurred. The church lost it's grip, religion written by priests in books were not the only books published anymore!

peb
03-18-2015, 01:09 PM
peb, have you read Guns, Germs, and Steel?

No.

Keith Wilson
03-18-2015, 01:41 PM
My claim is that modern science evolved in Christendom.It certainly did.


Both point to the same conclusion: namely that modern science specifically developed due to a Christian culture. But this is a very, very different claim.

Peb, you've made the point about modern science being a result of Christianity several times. It's a pretty standard Catholic position, but I think there are a couple of flaws in the reasoning. Modern science took off after Christianity was fragmented, after religious control over society was much weakened, and after the philosophical revolution normally called the Enlightenment. It also took off mostly, although not entirely, in Protestant countries, and in general in places where religious influence was relatively weaker. Sure, Luther may have been hostile to reason, but in general later Protestants were anything but. There was no Spanish or Latin American scientific revolution. Religion was not the only reason, but it was one reason.

You are quite correct that there was important preliminary work before all of these developments - but it was preliminary work. It had been matched or exceeded by preliminary work done in very different cultures; certainly in China, also in the Islamic world. You can't honestly point to the early work in Europe as evidence that Christianity was necessary for modern science because similar things happened multiple times elsewhere, where science did not take off. The transition from the early developments, which happened in multiple places, to modern science, which only happened in one - this occurred after the fragmentation of Christianity, the decline in religious influence, and the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The modern scientific revolution came with increasing secularization - whether cause, effect, or more likely a kind of feedback loop where secular philosophical ideas favor science, and increasing scientific knowledge encourages more secular philosophical ideas.

And one more point:


The Church has always held there can be no conflict between faith and reason,Well, yes, but it's ahistorical to consider this only in the modern sense: that if evidence and reason show us that something is true, then faith must adjust. Many times through history it's worked the other way; if reason conflicts with faith, then reason must be wrong. (See Haley Clifford and evolution for a dramatic modern example.) The Roman Catholic Church has not been nearly as uniformly hostile to science as some folks have claimed, but IMHO you're taking way too rosy a view.

Kevin T
03-18-2015, 04:13 PM
My claim is that modern science evolved in Christendom. I did not claim there was no scientific advances made in other cultures. Indeed, one of the reasons that modern science came to fruition during the renaissance period was the Christian willingness to accept what was good out of other cultures. But that is not the primary reason.
There are two ways of looking at this: one is the practical history of the matter, and the other is the philosophical. Both point to the same conclusion: namely that modern science specifically developed due to a Christian culture.
Some brief statements on comments already made on the thread:
1) it developed due to the age of enlightenment: you guys need to look at the timing of events. Modern science was will out of the crib prior to the time of enlightenment
2) It had to do with the reformation fracturing the Church's control: not true. Again, the early advances in the renaissance in philosophy and science had already taken form and the protestant reformers were actually quite hostile to it all. There was a "hint" of fundamentalism in the very early days. It was Luther said "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has".
3) It had to do with the printing press: this did make a difference and is worth noting.

As to the practical history of the matter:

1) it was the Church where the great universities developed. These universities early on had areas oaf study in the natural philosophies (ie science). These universities had scholarly debates from across Europe on all areas of study. It was a remarkable event in history.
2) The Church's patronage of science was immense throughout the late middle ages well into the age of enlightenment
3) Many, many members of the clergy spent time in studying natural philosophy from the 11th century on. And then you had the Jesuits: there was never an organization which had so many members devote themselves to a life of scientific study and defend the needs of it



The philosophical aspects:
Christianity has held that God created an ordered universe. The understanding of the order of the universe was good. The need of technical progress in order to benefit mankind was well understood by late middle ages. The Church has always held there can be no conflict between faith and reason, hence in Christendom there was no ingrained or institutionalized fear of scientific endeavor. All of this led to culture from which science could form.

Yes the amount of scientific discovery exploded well after the period I am describing, but it was built on the shoulders of what was done during the middle ages and Christendom. And it was accomplished in a Christian culture that was still largely intact.

The science of Islam? Very impressive in many aspects, but stillborn.

No disrespect intended, but your statement above (my bolding) has me wondering the following. Why, if the church "has always held there can be no conflict between faith and reason" have they steadfastly remained against contraception and the protection against the transmission of Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Is it not reasonable to assume that biology trumps dogma and that humans like the mammals they are, are going to seek and engage in sexual intercourse. In other words teachings of abstinence only has proven both unreasonable and more importantly, less than effective.

Your thoughts?

johnw
03-18-2015, 04:56 PM
First of all, science has taken off in different places at different times. It flourished in the Arab world between about 700 and 1000 A.D., in Greece around 400 B.C., and as for China:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China
The "Four Great Inventions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Great_Inventions)" (simplified Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters): 四大发明; traditional Chinese (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_characters): 四大發明; pinyin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin): sì dà fāmíng) are the compass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compass), gunpowder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpowder), papermaking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papermaking) and printing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Printing). Paper and printing were developed first. Printing was recorded in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China) in the Tang Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Dynasty), although the earliest surviving examples of printed cloth patterns date to before 220.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#cite_no te-cave-18) Pin-pointing the development of the compass can be difficult: the magnetic attraction of a needle is attested by the Louen-heng, composed between AD 20 and 100,[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#cite_no te-19) although the first undisputed magnetized needles in Chinese literature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_literature) appear in 1086.[20] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#cite_no te-20)
By AD 300, Ge Hong, an alchemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alchemy) of the Jin Dynasty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jin_Dynasty_%28265%E2%80%93420%29), conclusively recorded the chemical reactions caused when saltpetre, pine resin and charcoal were heated together, in Book of the Master of the Preservations of Solidarity.[21] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#cite_no te-21) Another early record of gunpowder, a Chinese book from c. 850 AD, indicates:


"Some have heated together sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur), realgar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realgar) and saltpeter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium_nitrate) with honey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honey); smoke and flames result, so that their hands and faces have been burnt, and even the whole house where they were working burned down."[22] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#cite_no te-22)
These four discoveries had an enormous impact on the development of Chinese civilization and a far-ranging global impact. Gunpowder, for example, spread to the Arabs in the 13th century and thence to Europe.[23] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_and_technology_in_China#cite_no te-23) According to English (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England) philosopher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy) Francis Bacon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bacon), writing in Novum Organum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novum_Organum):



Astronomy was not based on colonialism, it was based on word done by the Arabs.

Europe was open to ideas from the Arabs and the Chinese because they knew they were behind. How did they pull ahead?

Well, one thing was that moveable type works better with the Roman alphabet than the Arab script or Chinese characters.

Here's a complete set of lead type for setting books in Chinese:

http://idsgn.org/images/the-end-of-movable-type-in-china/set.jpg

That's a major industrial operation.

Here's a complete set of type for English:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f1/18/2f/f1182f91602d0d40eff3c293360f4c4c.jpg

That's a small business, cheaper and easier to set up, harder to control. Religion does get a look in: As books became cheaper, knowledge spread more widely. People wanted to read the Bible themselves, in their own language, to have an immediate connection to God, not least because the Catholic Church was widely viewed as corrupt. The Church used to kill people for reading the Bible in English (I recommend Fox's Book of Christian Martyrs if you want to read the history of the Lolards.)

As Protestantism spread, the very legitimacy of governments came into question. In a country half Protestant and half Catholic, if you ruled by divine right, you had about half the population thinking you were an illegitimate apostate.

The solution was to have secular governments, and allow freedom of conscience. And if you allow people to think freely, all kinds of things happen. For one thing, the new justification for governments was not that they ruled by God's mandate, but that they ruled because we need rulers to enforce law and keep us from being killed. But if you rule because you're doing a job for the people, shouldn't they have a say in who rules them? What if the sovereign sucks at his job?

Science and liberal democracies are both children of the Enlightenment, of a shift from reliance on tradition and myth to reliance on reason and evidence. The idea that we should elect our rulers came from trying to think about what sort of government is suited to mankind. Science, similarly, seeks logical and instrumental control of the world.

Engraved above the doorway to a building at the Colorado School of Mines: The control of nature is not given, it is won.

Osborne Russell
03-18-2015, 09:55 PM
The thing with the alphabet and movable type based on it is big. Along with it, the agreement to use Latin as a common tongue.

The Church contributed money, which is playing a part. So did rich merchants.

At the outset of the Renaissance, both wanted monuments, i.e. buildings and sculpture. These were made by artists but the artists had to solve the technical problems. There were no architects or engineers, as specialists. They were all "artists". E.g. the Duke of Milan paid da Vinci to design a canal system. Who else? Those guys knew how to draw and were developing the idea of dealing with things in terms of proportion. Michelangelo had to design the scaffolding for plastering the Sistine Chapel, and on his resume, as was apparently the thing back then, was his proposed design for a bridge over the Dardanelles. Any big time artist had one of those, complete with drawings.

Peerie Maa
03-19-2015, 05:24 AM
Some brief statements on comments already made on the thread: 1) it developed due to the age of enlightenment: you guys need to look at the timing of events. Modern science was will out of the crib prior to the time of enlightenment2) It had to do with the reformation fracturing the Church's control: not true. Again, the early advances in the renaissance in philosophy and science had already taken form and the protestant reformers were actually quite hostile to it all. There was a "hint" of fundamentalism in the very early days. It was Luther said "Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has".3) It had to do with the printing press: this did make a difference and is worth noting.As to the practical history of the matter:1) it was the Church where the great universities developed. These universities early on had areas oaf study in the natural philosophies (ie science). These universities had scholarly debates from across Europe on all areas of study. It was a remarkable event in history.2) The Church's patronage of science was immense throughout the late middle ages well into the age of enlightenment3) Many, many members of the clergy spent time in studying natural philosophy from the 11th century on. And then you had the Jesuits: there was never an organization which had so many members devote themselves to a life of scientific study and defend the needs of itAgain I take issue with the detail of this.
University studies took six years for a Master of Arts degree (a Bachelor of Arts degree would be awarded after completing the third or fourth year). The studies for this were organized by the faculty of arts, where the seven liberal arts were taught: arithmetic, geometry, astronomy, music theory, grammar, logic, and rhetoric.[20][21] All instruction was given in Latin and students were expected to be able to converse in that language.[22] The trivium comprised the three subjects that were taught first: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. These three subjects were the most important of the seven liberal arts for medieval students.[23] The curriculum came also to include the three Aristotelian philosophies: physics, metaphysics and moral philosophy.[23]Much of medieval thought in philosophy and theology can be found in scholastic textual commentary because scholasticism was such a popular method of teaching. Aelius Donatus' Ars grammatica was the standard textbook for grammar; also studied were the works of Priscian and Graecismus by Eberhard of Béthune.[24] Cicero's works were used for the study of rhetoric.[23] Studied books on logic included Porphyry's introduction to Aristotelian logic, Gilbert de la Porrée's De sex principiis and Summulae Logicales by Petrus Hispanus (later Pope John XXI).[25] The standard work of astronomy wasTractatus de sphaera.[25]The mediaeval universities studied the work of the ancients. There was no innovation and no advances, therefor it was not "science". Scientific enquiry began with the likes of Harvey and his study of the circulation of blood in the 16th century. Bacon is credited as the first true scientist in Europe, but
Some time between 1277 and 1279, Bacon was apparently imprisoned or placed under house arrest for his excessive credulity in alchemy and for his harsh regard for the other innovators of his time. Some time after 1278 Bacon returned to the Franciscan House at Oxford, where he continued his studies[9] and is presumed to have spent most of the rest of his life. He is said to have died in June of 1292 (the year of his last dateable writing, Compendium studii theologiae) and to be buried in Oxford.Bacon was not working in a university, but alone in a Friary, so the University system cannot be credited with his brief flowering. The most important output of the mediaeval university were clerics and lawyers. The secular families putting most value on law, see the Paxton letters for the context for this.

peb
03-19-2015, 07:38 AM
Keith, sorry for the delay in reply, I am very busy and it was unfortunate timing that my statement on another thread was challenged yesterday.


It certainly did.

But this is a very, very different claim.

.

Yes, it is a very different claim. The original claim, which folks took exception to, seemed so obviously true based on simple chronology and geography, that I felt the need to make a stronger statement. In order to give you guys a fighting chance :)




It also took off mostly, although not entirely, in Protestant countries, and in general in places where religious influence was relatively weaker. Sure, Luther may have been hostile to reason, but in general later Protestants were anything but. There was no Spanish or Latin American scientific revolution. Religion was not the only reason, but it was one reason.
You are quite correct that there was important preliminary work before all of these developments - but it was preliminary work. It had been matched or exceeded by preliminary work done in very different cultures; certainly in China, also in the Islamic world. You can't honestly point to the early work in Europe as evidence that Christianity was necessary for modern science because similar things happened multiple times elsewhere, where science did not take off. The transition from the early developments, which happened in multiple places, to modern science, which only happened in one - this occurred after the fragmentation of Christianity, the decline in religious influence, and the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The modern scientific revolution came with increasing secularization - whether cause, effect, or more likely a kind of feedback loop where secular philosophical ideas favor science, and increasing scientific knowledge encourages more secular philosophical ideas.

One can certainly say the age of enlightenment started in the mid 17th century, but one does that only to say that the age of enlightenment started with the "explosion" of scientific discovery (eg. Newton, Bacon). Scientific discoveries continual to come at a faster and faster pace. The last 50 years we had a lot more than the previous 150 years. So would we say there was something in the last 50 years of our culture that caused it? No, we would say that it seems to grow somewhat exponentially. Side note: it would be a very interesting thread to discuss how long this will/can continue.
Its not a matter of just important preliminary work being done, a matter of people using a continually growing knowledge base.


Well, yes, but it's ahistorical to consider this only in the modern sense: that if evidence and reason show us that something is true, then faith must adjust. Many times through history it's worked the other way; if reason conflicts with faith, then reason must be wrong. (See Haley Clifford and evolution for a dramatic modern example.) The Roman Catholic Church has not been nearly as uniformly hostile to science as some folks have claimed, but IMHO you're taking way too rosy a view.
Give me examples (and spare me Galileo, I don't have time to explain that unfortunate scenario again). You can certainly find examples of a few Catholic theologians who vigorously debated and fought against certain scientific beliefs. You cannot find it as an institutionalized activity.

peb
03-19-2015, 07:43 AM
The mediaeval universities studied the work of the ancients. There was no innovation and no advances, therefor it was not "science". Scientific enquiry began with the likes of Harvey and his study of the circulation of blood in the 16th century. Bacon is credited as the first true scientist in Europe, but

Not true. Look at St Albert the Great or at Adelard of Bath (who famously said "I will detract nothing from God, for whatever is is from Him, but we must listen to the very limits of human knowledge and only when this utterly breaks down shall we refer things to God".
Now, the very early Humanists certainly believed in limiting the study to the ancients and allowed for no innovations. But they were really an Italian aberration, and even the Humanities did not keep to that for long at all.

Jim Mahan
03-19-2015, 07:52 AM
...proposed design for a bridge over the Dardanelles. Any big time artist had one of those, complete with drawings.

Hey, I got some drawings of a bridge I can sell you.

peb
03-19-2015, 08:05 AM
No disrespect intended, but your statement above (my bolding) has me wondering the following. Why, if the church "has always held there can be no conflict between faith and reason" have they steadfastly remained against contraception and the protection against the transmission of Aids and other sexually transmitted diseases.

Is it not reasonable to assume that biology trumps dogma and that humans like the mammals they are, are going to seek and engage in sexual intercourse. In other words teachings of abstinence only has proven both unreasonable and more importantly, less than effective.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts are that this discussion would lead to serious thread drift.

Peerie Maa
03-19-2015, 09:26 AM
Not true. Look at St Albert the Great or at Adelard of Bath (who famously said "I will detract nothing from God, for whatever is is from Him, but we must listen to the very limits of human knowledge and only when this utterly breaks down shall we refer things to God". Now, the very early Humanists certainly believed in limiting the study to the ancients and allowed for no innovations. But they were really an Italian aberration, and even the Humanities did not keep to that for long at all.
The second of this trio, and arguably Adelard's most significant contribution, was his Questiones Naturales or Questions on Natural Science. It can be dated between 1107 and 1133 as, in the text, Adelard himself mentions that seven years have passed since his lecturing in schools at Laon.[2] He chooses to present this work as a forum for Arabic learning, referring often to his experiences in Antioch.[11] He sets out seventy-six questions, in the form of a Platonic dialogue about meteorology and natural science. It was used heavily in schools into and beyond the 13th century but the teaching on natural things would ultimately be superseded by Aristotle’s writing.[9] The text is broken up into three parts: On Plants and Brute Animals, On Man and On Earth, Water, Air, and Fire.[14] Two of the more specific features associated with this text are (1) a preference for reason over authority in matters of science and nature (in other words, seeking solutions via reason and logic rather than through faith) and (2) the use of the literary device of invoking Arab teachings when presenting very controversial topics (i.e. that brute animals may possess knowledge and souls)[15]Nope, that is not science. There is no experimentation to test or falsify a hypothesys, no independent peer review. It is all in his mind. I'll give you Albertus Magnus, but
Albert placed emphasis on experiment as well as investigation, but he respected authority and tradition so much that many of his investigations or experiments were unpublished. Albert would often keep silent about many issues such as astronomy, physics and such because he felt that his theories were too advanced for the time in which he was living.[3] which makes him somewhat irrelevent to the development of science. Science has to be published to be valid.

peb
03-19-2015, 10:06 AM
Nope, that is not science. There is no experimentation to test or falsify a hypothesys, no independent peer review. It is all in his mind. I'll give you Albertus Magnus, but which makes him somewhat irrelevent to the development of science. Science has to be published to be valid.

You have changed from "They studied the ancients, there was no work innovation and no advances, therefor it was not "science"." To it had to be published to be science. BTW, there was work, there were advances, and they were published. But it is all besides the point.

I am not claiming that these guys were scientists in the modern sense. I am not claiming that the early universities had science departments. I am claiming that they, in their very early forms, took the study of "natural philosophy" (A term for science btw all the way into the 19th century) seriously. And the creation and existence of these universities is one of the key reasons modern science developed out of Christendom.

Kevin T
03-19-2015, 10:24 AM
My thoughts are that this discussion would lead to serious thread drift.

Okay, I guess I didn't understand that we were only speaking of the conflict between faith and reason, with respect to how "reason" was generally understood 800 to a thousand years ago. I thought the word always meant to include up to the present day, my apologies.

If that's the thread focus (science, faith and reason in the 13th century) then you're right, if we bring faith and reason into the modern times, then the statement "has always held there can be no conflict between faith and reason" would result in serious thread drift away from things that happened 800 years ago and be more in line and obvious conflict with the above bolded statement.

Peerie Maa
03-19-2015, 10:52 AM
I am not claiming that these guys were scientists in the modern sense. I am not claiming that the early universities had science departments. I am claiming that they, in their very early forms, took the study of "natural philosophy" (A term for science btw all the way into the 19th century) seriously. And the creation and existence of these universities is one of the key reasons modern science developed out of Christendom.Well surely that is the point of this thread. Alchemy is not science, what they did in mediaeval universities was not science. The fact that modern science developed in societies where the established religion is one or another form of Christianity is not the same as claiming that science developed out of or because of Christianity. You might as well argue that moveable type developed out of the scriptoriums of monasteries. The Wiki I quoted makes it plain that the only natural philosophy that the universities were interested in was astronomy and medicine. Their approach to these was to study what the ancients said and try to fit reality to the teaching of those ancients. That unfortuanetly is the opposite of science. It is only work done outside of the universities that was able to use empitical data to work out new hypotheses. Remember that the "four humours" basis for medicine was only abandoned in the 17th C, such was the grip of the shibolleth of Ancient Learning. Wise women who understood herbal medicine (e.g. what could be seen to work) ran the risk of being burned as a witch ;)

Peerie Maa
03-19-2015, 11:08 AM
Give me examples (and spare me Galileo, I don't have time to explain that unfortunate scenario again). You can certainly find examples of a few Catholic theologians who vigorously debated and fought against certain scientific beliefs. You cannot find it as an institutionalized activity.I missed this whilst I was answering your preceding post. As with all institutions, some Popes were liberals, some were reactionary conservatives. Some popes supported scientific enquiry, the bureaucracy of others did not. Pope Clement supported Bacon, but after Clement died Bacon was imprisoned. There is no black or white.

Osborne Russell
03-20-2015, 01:00 PM
Hey, I got some drawings of a bridge I can sell you.

In Turkey ! |:)