Freethought & Rationalism Archive

No Robots · 08-30-2007, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

Well, they certainly didn't develop modern science, if that is what you mean.

They certainly did lay its epistemic foundation.

Quote:

Like the Chinese they seemed to have blind spots which meant their undoubtedly impressive achievements were not developed into the admittedly difficult conceptual framework which allows modern science to form. The divorce between mathematics and natural philosophy, the lack of much experiment and their beholdenness to Aristotelain dogma all seemed to hold them back. Also, the tiny number of Greek philosophers and the lack of any official program in the subject was another serious problem that meant the subject didn't develop critical mass.

It is true that the Greeks generally lacked a commitment to specifically practical application. The main problem, however was that their insight was thwarted by a thousand years of theologico-scholastic mummery that made it an offense to say that 1 and 3 are not the same. It wasn't until the Renaissance brought back the Greeks that science began to revive. The complete synthesis of mathematics and natural philosophy was achieved by Spinoza. Take a look at Brunner's Science, Spirit, Superstition.

James Hannam · 08-30-2007, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is true that the Greeks generally lacked a commitment to specifically practical application. The main problem, however was that their insight was thwarted by a thousand years of theologico-scholastic mummery that made it an offense to say that 1 and 3 are not the same. It wasn't until the Renaissance brought back the Greeks that science began to revive. The complete synthesis of mathematics and natural philosophy was achieved by Spinoza. Take a look at Brunner's Science, Spirit, Superstition.

My entire book refutes this thesis piece by piece. It is the old nineteenth century paradigm that should have been killed off years ago. As for Brunner, a little out-of-date, isn't he?

Best wishes

James

Read chapter one of God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science FREE

No Robots · 08-30-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

My entire book refutes this thesis piece by piece.

For instance?

Quote:

It is the old nineteenth century paradigm that should have been killed off years ago.

Lord knows people have tried. All Brunner's books were burned by the Nazis.

Quote:

As for Brunner, a little out-of-date, isn't he?

Why don't you find out for yourself?

Sarpedon · 08-30-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Byzantium was a backwater compared to Beijing

ha ha ha! Beijing was a backwater at that time. The capital of China was Louyang!

Brother Daniel · 08-30-2007, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

Yes. The really odd thing is that modern science arose in Christian Western Europe in the sixteenth/seventeenth centuries and not in China. Why the Chinese never developed science is one of the great unanswered questions of history.

The claim that they "never developed science", without some kind of qualifying adjective attached to "science", seems a bit overstated, given your defense of western medieval science.

Anyway, I suppose the development of (modern) science had to start somewhere. Thereafter, the mere absorption of modern western science by any other culture would doom that other culture to "never" develop modern science on their own, regardless of whether the potential was there. My point is that we must be careful not to overstate the significance of the question.

But since we've asked the question, I'm curious to know what you think of Jared Diamond's speculation: That China's political unification (compared to Europe's fragmentation) made innovations more vulnerable to being shut down by disapproving authorities.

Lógos Sokratikós · 08-30-2007, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucretius

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lógos Sokratikós

Westerners were always scoundrels as compared to the Greeks, pre or post Rome, until the end of WWII, then a little better after decolonization (the French in Argelia were terrible), and much better after the cold war (until GWB).

"Scoundrels "maybe but you have to admit that these "Western scoundrels " were able to do something that the "more sophisticated" Greeks were unable to do.
Namely create a long lasting Empire that for all its' faults still has an influence today.
Alexander the Greats "empire" rapidly disintegrated into chaos and in-fighting between his generals and while the Roman Empire did have it's Civil Wars in spite of this remained recognizably Roman, whereas the empire Alexander created in the East became several fractured smaller empires.
In fact I would go further and say that it was very much the "cross pollination" of Greek AND Roman (Western scoundrelish) culture that enabled the Eastern Byzantine Empire to survive for as long as it did .
(Please note I am not in any way "attacking Greek culture " I obviously know of the huge debt that Roman culture had to the Greeks)

That's because they were so great at being scoundrels. Like the Spaniards from California to Chile-Argentina. They "united" the land like no native culture could. The cost was enormous. My antepasados were very effective scoundrels indeed! And they had no right, as friar Francisco de Vitoria convincingly pointed out (well not convincing for the crown and the church hierarchy, that's for sure).

Brother Daniel · 08-30-2007, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No Robots

It is true that the Greeks generally lacked a commitment to specifically practical application. The main problem, however was that their insight was thwarted by a thousand years of theologico-scholastic mummery that made it an offense to say that 1 and 3 are not the same.

I don't buy that, mostly because I don't see how Eastern theology is/was any worse than Western theology.

Since you've alluded to the doctrine of the trinity: Eastern theologians have often been willing to present trinitarian dogma merely as "the prescribed way that humans ought to think about God", while their Western counterparts (other than recent liberals) have insisted that the dogma describes how God actually is. If adherence to crazy theological ideas was the problem, surely it would have handicapped the West more than the East.

More generally, I think you underestimate the degree to which people can compartmentalize their brains.

Example: I work in a research institution. One of the brightest people here (to judge from what he does in his own area of expertise) is a thoroughgoing fundy, biblical inerrantist, YEC, the whole bit. I once pointed out to him how weird it is that the ascension story portrays Jesus as going physically "upward" in order to get to heaven. I was amazed that that story had never bothered him, not even a little bit -- and that even after I pointed it out, he managed to shrug off the weirdness within minutes.

Lógos Sokratikós · 08-30-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

Quote:

Originally Posted by enoch007

so many learned persons on this thread seem totally oblivious to THE CHINESE CULTURE...whose continuous (if intermittant dynastic) march of invention, conquest, innovation and spleandor rivals, at least, and probably surpasses all the achievements of any of the aforementioned cultural hegemonies.

Yes. The really odd thing is that modern science arose in Christian Western Europe in the sixteenth/seventeenth centuries and not in China. Why the Chinese never developed science is one of the great unanswered questions of history. Even Joseph Needham didn't seem to know, although he tenditively blames their metaphysics.

Best wishes

James

Very good point.
I think the discussion will not benefit from bickering about whether Christianity was good or bad for the coming of science, but in what ways it was good and bad. Bede, I want to remind you that the birth of modern science is placed at Galileo (I know this has its level of arbitrariness, but the fact that Mr Galilei is mentioned is important), and his was a rough ride with the church. I contend that from Galileo's time on, Christianity hasn't fostered science in any meaningful way, and that before the XIXth century people did believe the world was created in six days, for instance.

James, I want to ask you if you can agree with this as rule of thumb (and I'm not saying this will prove Christianity was not ever good for science):
Science cannot flourish when dogma is effectively imposed.

What do you think? Why or why not? And if true, what do you think may be the repercussions for the subject?

Lógos Sokratikós · 08-30-2007, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brother Daniel

But since we've asked the question, I'm curious to know what you think of Jared Diamond's speculation: That China's political unification (compared to Europe's fragmentation) made innovations more vulnerable to being shut down by disapproving authorities.

Yes! I love that! I've thought so too, and I think Jared Diamond is very smart in agreeing with me

Brother Daniel · 08-30-2007, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by James Hannam

...[the Greeks'] undoubtedly impressive achievements were not developed into the admittedly difficult conceptual framework which allows modern science to form.

Pushing the historical questions aside for a moment -- and maybe this deserves a new thread -- I'm curious about this. What do you mean by the "conceptual framework which allows modern science to form"? What exactly is "difficult" about it? (Note that I'm not denying that there is something difficult about it; I just want it spelled out.)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.