Sauron

You're reaching really far on this one, Bede. The NIH information as well as the Journal of Nephrology quote are both in the context of human dissection.

Moreover, there is no question that animal dissection was permitted - there was never any question of a religious proscription on animals. Animal dissection would thus not be anything special or noteworthy. But in discussing the history of human medicine, what a researcher would most be interested in would be the first occurrences o fhuman dissection.

Not comparable. Roman religious and social views aren't tangent to Islamic views.

We have two. You simply refuse to acknowledge it.

Jeez. You're really twisting her words - not surprising. Here is her actual quote:

The first thing to note here is that the context of the paragraph clearly indicates that it is human dissection we're talking about - see the word in bold above; I can use red and underline font as well, if it helps you to find the word. Thus your first point above (that Savage-Smith's quote might be interpreted as meaning animal dissection) is just more hand-waving.

The second thing to note here is that Savage-Smith is NOT saying that she thinks human dissection wasn't occurring in Islam. It's clear that what she is saying is that it wasn't a common practice, or a mainstream practice, but that it did occur in certain identified examples. That is, in fact, precisely why she says though to what extent these reflect actual practice is problematic. It is not meant to say that they weren't going on; merely to raise the question of how routine the practice of dissection was.

So in summation, both your strawman about animal dissection as well as your lame attempt to make the quotation deny any dissection are not supported by the clear reading of her comment. You are twisting her words because you cannot address them fully.



[quote]
She is wrong about medieval Eruope after 1300 as I have shown. As I have also said, in an effort to be fair, there may be further evidence about Islam we have not seen, but we need it to make a decision.

On Christianity, peer reviewed textbooks and journal articles trump the internet - especially when you link to an out of copyright version of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

No, they are intended to address your failure to support your case about him, and the fact that you did not disclose his bias when you offered him as an "expert witness."

Moreover, you also continue to duck and hide about Russell advocating creationism in public schools in Britain.
http://www.cis.org.uk/articles/schools_evolution.htm
So I'll ask my question again: Bede, what credibility do you think we should assign to such a "historian"? Russell is avidly religious and a creationist as well has immediate bearing as to his objectivity in any research matter. If he can "bend the rules" in science enough to accept creationism and advocate it in public schools, then what else might he be capable of? Who's to say he hasn't "bent the rules" in historical analysis?

Find someone who cares.

Sauron

Totally bogus comparison. Should we also permit teaching the flat earth theory, Gurdur?

Supporting gay marriage is a social issue.

Theories of origin are a scientific one.

One is objectively testable and provable - the other is merely the codification of values and conventions.

Gurdur

Maybe you should read my post just above yours before trying this again.

As an athiest, as a scientist by training, and as someone who dislikes dogmatism, I certainly care.

Gurdur

oooooo, I doubt you can simply declare it a "completely bogus comparison", plus throwing in a strawman; I was previously going to go into how attitudes towards and definitions of religion are very different between the States and the UK (meaning that support of a particular label does not mean in the UK what it would mean in the States, and that someone might support teaching of an issue without believing in it), but then I found my remarks on that to be superseded and rendered moot by actually reading in full the citation you gave anyway, as a result of which I posted a different reply.
I suggest you read it.

Sauron

Is it? We'll see.

No. In that case, it's far more likely that Britannica would refer to such works as "influential".

If you think that there are cases of Britannica labeling a person (or a work) as "outstanding" when all they meant to say was "influential for that period of time", then by all means bring such examples forth, Gurdur. But before you do, you might want to check one of your own examples, below.

Sure. Let's do. What you'll find is that your example supports my claim. Britannica on Spengler:

Britannica used "outstanding" on purpose, when referring to White's work. Had they only meant "influential for the time period", then one would expect a characterization like they gave to Spengler's work.

Gurdur

Actually, no.

Britannica assigns subjects to different scholars; they tend to have slightly different styles. The EB board attempts to have an across-the-board standard of excellence and consistancy, yet differences in phrasing, judgment and style still persist between all the different contributors to the EB.

Making a huge argument on the basis of the word "outstanding" still does not mean that even that particular author thought the work in question error-free.

BTW, still waiting on a reply about your confusion between USA-style-Creationism and UK-style-theistic-evolution.

Sauron

Nonsense, for several reasons:

I never said anything about YEC vs OEC. My point was that Russell supports creationism - any kind of creationism - being taught in public schools in Britain. You seem to think that just becuase it's an old-earth creationism, that somehow that makes Russell's support for that position more respectable, or more palatable in polite society. But neither YEC nor OEC have any scientific standing. So the distinction you're making here (while relevant to a discussion of creationism) doesn't refute my point.

Russell, an avidly religious christian, has (surprise, surprise) published works rehabilitating medieval christianity (surprise, surprise). But if a researcher can support rteaching creationism in public schools - any flavor of creationism - what does that say about his ability to separate his personal agenda from a dispassionate review of the facts?

So you are saying that the two quotations I provided do not indicate that dissection occurred in Islam? Bede hasn't been able to gainsay that point; would you care to try?

Sauron

*sigh*

If you have evidence that they meant *something else* when they used that word, then please bring it forth. But tossing around vague comments like "styles differ, multiple authors, etc." doesn't bear on the specific example here. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the word "outstanding" means exactly what it says.

Strawman, Gurdur. I never said it was "error-free". I offered Britannica to counter Bede's rash characterization:

a nineteenth century polemicist who is treated as joke by historians of science today. His work is out of date, wrong and grossly misleading. At times I even doubt his honesty.

Were you following the discussion at that point, or did you join it late in the thread?

Go read it.

Gurdur

Rubbish.
I suggest you take another look at that letter.
Theistic evolution is not the same as OEC as it is understood in the USA, and the stance the signatories seem to be pushing is some kind of theistic evolution.
You merely confuse the issue when you try identifying that implicity with Creationism as it is understood generally here.

Moreover, the signatories seem to be pushing a view well in accordance with science --- that is, the Earth formed as a result of galactic mechanics; their so-called creationism seems to be a Prime Cause kind of thing, and they are pushing for the teaching of religion as well as science in UK schools, not for creationist accounts replacing science.
Completely beside the point.
Grasp the distinction between a theistic scientist who acknowledges science in full yet wishes to reconcile that with an eventual Creator, on the one hand,
and Creationism as it is popularly understood OTOH.

This is not even OEC as you understand it in question here.

Your charge has been rendered useless.

Repeating a mischaracterization won't help you.
Naw; while you haven't answered Livius Drusus' question here, I'm merely calling to account the tactics being used.
They have nothing to do with the subject matter, no matter how you've tried it, and merely detract from your position on the actual history involved --- a poistion I mostly agree with.

But it's your mistaken ad hominem's I was tackling.


Oh, BTW, prepared to acknowledge the falsity of your attack on the Open University ?

Sauron

Not really. You're a victim of chronology.

Bede's trying to claim that dissection occurred with regularity in christian europe during the 1300s. Vesalius practiced in the middle of the 1500s - two centuries later. By that time, dissection was more widespread, although still frowned upon. The "common practice" you refer to here was that the teacher would usually not get involved in the dissection, but would instead read Galen to the students while they did the dissection, or merely lecture them as they did the actual work. Where Vesalius broke with "common practice", was by doing the dissections himself.

The point about Vesalius was to counter Bede's claim that we have no examples of anyone being persecuted or prosecuted for performing dissections. Again, since Bede is fond of framing his claims in absolute forms, this claim was easy to falsify.