Bede

They don't say its a myth. They say it happened (but not as many people assume) and that it is misunderstood. Same with evolution (the Wilberforce/Huxley debate is usually misreported for instance and Huxley never said the killer line). Bascially, we have a single example of the church launching one prosecution for very foolish reasons which White and yourself seek to extrapolate into a general conflict with science. The problem is that you only have two examples - heliocentricism and modern creationism. Nearly all the other examples that White trots out (and were mentioned on this thread) are untrue. Why do you not aim you ire at him for all his misleading stories. Be consistant!

In order for us to have any sort of civilised debate you need to admit that a) I've been right about the modern consensus (whether or not you agree with it), b) most of the examples of conflict brought up here were false (anatomy, geology etc), c) that the church did not oppose many scientific advances and d) I have been arguing in good faith and that neither I nor my professional colleagues are doing history as apologetics (unless we actually say we are). Without these concessions, I don't see how we can proceed. Andrew Cunningham told his students that after reading his book on science and the church, they'd probably think he was a Catholic. He assured them he was an atheist but realised that his book would surprise alot of them!

I certainly realise that that Catholic Church opposed heliocentricism, although I would agree with L&N that this was not primarily for religious reasons. Likewise, many Christian groups, although not especially the Catholic Church, have opposed the theory of evolution. You could probably find other examples for us to look at if you were willing to drop the insistence that White knew what he was talking about.

Best wishes

Bede

Bede

Palimpsests are another interesting case. The ruinous cost of parchment combined with its ability to withstand centuries of wear and tear meant that it was frequently reused. The old writing was scrapped off and the new written over the top. However, the process left faint images of the original text which later scholars have been able to read. Some important pagan works have been accidentally preserved in this way such as part of Cicero's De Republica and the recently rediscovered Archimedes palimpsest. There is no evidence that the monks doing the scrapping were deliberately targeting pagan texts although we may sometimes find their priorities unfortunate. The text they were scrapping off had, itself, been transcribed by earlier Christians and a perusal of a manuscript catalogue (such as the British Library's on-line) shows that in most cases the underlying material on a palimpsest is Christian as well. One of the earliest known bibles, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, had the sermons of Ephraemus written over the top of it.

More on these topics here: http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm

Best wishes

Bede

Lafcadio

Your incapacities and ad hominems are not arguments either. You're not dealing with the evidence and the arguments which were presented here. Denial is not argument and it's not the first time I tell you that, but it seems you just don't want to learn the lesson.

Bruno, unlike Galileo, has only a circumstantial connection to science, that some of the theories he supported were natural philosophy. I already argued about that, lacking any counterarguments -> case closed.

In the paragraph below you tell me to read Bruno yet you have no clue of his life? I already pointed out that he attempted to recant some of the things he said and I received no reply. Your cecity and denial can't bring you anywhere in this discussion. Have you noticed you're arguing ad nauseam?

I did it. Another wild assertion of Spin. Should I start talking about semitic languages to receive an argument from you?

Lafcadio

Nicole Oresme (14th century) rejected astrology and revived some Greek concepts and even brough his own contributions. Regiomontanus is also known for refining and even critiquing the Almagest and for his own observations. These guys are pre-Copernican. But indeed there's a gap between 7th century and 12th, a period some historians like to center in 1000 (for a bit other reasons than those concerning our discussion). However the phenomena involved are very complex (and that keeping Byzantine world out of the discussion ).
Regarding your association, let's notice that in 5-6th century the Christianity of the Germanic tribes was way different of the Western Christianity of 15th century. If one makes a case of Christian-specific backwardness has to take several factors in account, the dynamic ones being most difficult to encompass in a brief conclusive claim.

Isn't that a nice coincidence with the rise of Medieval University?

No.
Hygiene (and bathing in particular as you mention it) had ups and downs. Amazingly some of its downs even during Enlightenment when various theories about water and diseases were en vogue. In medieval London there were public baths called stews. In Florence there were public baths. Solid soap came from Asia during Medieval Ages.

Philadelphia Lawyer

Brooke's course is called "Six myths in the history of science". He claims, in his course description, that Galileo is one of the "well know historical examples" of such a myth.

But they haven't been able to debunk any of the essential elements of the so-called myth. See post 142.

There is more to the evolution controversy than Wilberforce. Why don't you address the arguments I made in post 142 that Lindberg and Number's attempt to characterize the controversy as anything other than a conflict between science and religion is unpersuasive?

I've admitted this all along.

I'm not just going to admit this because I'm not sure it's true. For example, you say:

The Catholic Encyclopedia says:

link

You claim that there is "no hint" that Vesalius was ever prosecuted by the Inquisition, but the Catholic Encyclopedia says that there was a letter dated at the time of his disappearance alleging precisely that he was.

The Encyclopedia also states that during this time period people with "new ideas" could easily be accused of heresy. Posters have been making the argument on this thread that people persecuted by the Church, nominally for "heresy", may in fact have been persecuted for their new ideas, with heresy just being used as a convenient, catch-all, allegation. Here, we have the Catholic Encyclopedia lending support to this argument.

I admit this.

I admit that you are arguing in good faith. I will not admit, however, that your "professional colleagues" are categorically innocent of practicing history as apologetics. Brooke, Lindberg, and Numbers have accused some of them of doing exactly that, and I see no reason why I should be required to admit to something that scholars whom you regard as experts do not.

I would like to proceed with a civilized discussion. But, if you find that my concessions are inadequate, then say so, and, as long as you leave me out of it, I will withdraw from this thread.

Deal?

spin

Impudence is not a virtue. You have shown with your desultory approach to Bruno that you have nothing to teach about the subject.

Yeah, here we go again. Nothing to say to justify your lacklustre approach to Bruno. So he wasn't a scientist. I never made that claim. This is just some straw man that you feel you have to tilt at. Keep titlting and you'll eventually fall over.

Bruno unlike Kepler for example didn't see the universe ending in a wall of stars. But Kepler is no less important for the fact that he didn't get that right, though Bruno did. Bruno, unlike Galileo, was prepared not to buckle to the counter-reformation and where Galileo had his daughter plead for him for various reasons, Bruno went to the fire alone, blindfolded and gagged. His works were placed on the list almost immediately afterwards.

Bruno spent 10 years teaching wherever he went through Europe of his post-Copernican acentric universe. (Yes, you're right he got it from the past, but that doesn't change his importance. But then, Copernicus said nothing new either, did he?)

You may try to marginalise him, just as the church did, but by 1889 there were enough people in Italy to have a statue erected to him in the very place he was burnt, a dose of untimely victory.

Yet you have no clue what I have a clue about.

If I torture you, you'll probably recant. What usually happened in a Roman dungeon?? Couldn't write, no pen, no paper. Couldn't read, no books. Probably tortured. C'mon, Filippo, be good, change your wicked ways. This hurts us more than it hurts you.

Several years of that and you'd probably recant your name.

??

Have you noticed you've had nothing to say other than these shallow attempts to deal with Bruno? You've rubbished him. You've attributed what he taught to other people, as though this would change the importance of the fellow. You've insulted him with such stuff as "Bruno was just a jester." Deep there Lafcadio, deep. It's the standard of the rest of your factoids there Lafcadio, umm, deep. But don't jump into it, you'll break your neck.

Naaa, find yourself a farm, where you'll get a lot of conversation at a suitable level for you. With a cluck, cluck here and a cluck, cluck there...

I'm impressed that you can show little respect for the guy, while showing so little knowledge of him.


spin

Lafcadio

I couldn't care less what I've shown you, I'm talking with you because it's a forum and other people read, not that I want to do you a favor.

I didn't say you claimed he was a scientist so the straw man is all yours from the start. You claimed he was advocating science and this claim I opposed and counterargued. Your poor skills in reading and understanding are your own problem, stop blaming others for your problems.

The value in science is not the truth but reason. Many scientific theories were proven untrue and that didn't made them 'less scientific'. If you have no idea what science is about it's understandable that you don't see what Bruno did advocated and what did not.
Kepler is valued as a pioneer of astronomy for his model of the solar system not for whatever claims you may find in his work and throw here to minimalize him. Kepler is an astronomer and Bruno isn't. Brahe is an astronomer and Bruno isn't, though Brahe wasn't neither heliocentrist, nor claimed an infinite worlds universe. Brahe's value is not in the truth-value of the things he said but for the observations he made. Science is about investigating nature not sitting in an armchair and muse about it.
You can't advocate science while refraining from a naturalist approach.

Okay then, let's celebrate then Bruno for not having a daughter to defend him or for his works entering the Index. But not that he advocated science.

I claimed too many times already that I value Bruno for advocating Copernican system, but not science. Copernicus, unlike Bruno, was an astronomer and unlike his predecessors he supported his theory with observations. That's why Copernicus is making a case. Bruno makes no case. Value is not in holding a certain idea but in argumenting for a certain idea. You fail to realize that even in your participation in this thread.

Again, me = church. You seem to develop some severe frustrations regarding both of us.

Charlemagne has statues too, yet he's not an advocate of science. Useless arguments are no arguments, in case you have the illusion you argue something.

Oh yes I do. You expose your thin knowledge in this field through your replies. The only chance I am wrong is that you act. Do you act, Spin?

You can't prove that he recanted because he was tortured and not because he was fearing death. Your earlier claims about his reasons to die are unsubstantiated and that was my point. Thank you for your attempts to back me up.

cecity = lack of sight, English word.

You interfered in my discourse talking about Bruno. That's why I deal with Bruno. As for sayings you have yet to deal with evidence and arguments to afford condescendent judgements on them.

Your ideas are few and fixed. I exposed facts. Using empty epithets is your style. I previously underlined the difference between how do I talk about Bruno and how do you talk about Church.

Of his pioneership, not of the fellow. Your misunderstandings are not mine so take responsability for them instead of blaming others.

I insulted him? Isn't that the truth? Talking of science, of course, because that was the context you stripped when you quoted me. How would you describe Henry Morris when you talk about his "scientific" approach?

This is a suggestive brief of your position. Why find a farm when I feel that way while talking to you?

Your impressions belong in your diary. This thread expects arguments and you seem unable to provide.

Buridan

I am not too sure about that gap (or other of Freeman's assertions), though this may be a matter of definitions of terms. "Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe" by Stephen C. McCluskey (Cambridge University Press, 2001) presents the story rather differently, by actually looking at the sources.

Astronomical observations went on in the whole period for various practical reasons, also done by a certain Bede :wave:

Buridan

Though I admire Wells style of writing (and have enjoyed this book myself for twenty years), I can't take this as anything other than that you admit (like Philadelphia Lawyer) that there is no serious modern study that supports the highly negative view that some has expressed here on the Church's influence on the development of science.

BTW, it was originally written in 1920, though revised somewhat in later editions.

Lafcadio

I was not refering to any of the authors mentioned, just compiled my knowledge and took in account the events of feudal revolution and it seems to me that the focus was mainly on social, rather on natural. Indeed I missed Bede's observations and minimalized the calendaristic usage of astronomy. Thank you for your correction.