lpetrich

However, these guys never tire of bragging about what great scientists they are, even though their "science" is almost a satire of the Real Thing. Ask a creationist how to recognize a "created kind", and be surprised if you get a straight answer. And there is this bit about agreeing what conclusions you are supposed to find in the Institute for Creation Research...

Bede

Well, the exchange between Vorkosigan and the Ferret has reestablished my faith in this thread.

The 'scientifc method' while great in principle is a bit of a chimera in that most science actually ignores it and without the right cultural and metaphyscal mileau it cannot even function. However, it is an important ideal which finally formed in the late seventeenth century in England. I think physicists, like the Ferret and I, need this ideal to guide their work but dogmatism and a code of science will be seriously counter productive.

While earlier authors from Aristotle to the great Arab thinkers, as well as Bacon and other medievals do seem to be suggesting something similar to the scientific method, they never seemed to practice what they preach. A certain amount of hindsight seems to be used when praising their foresight.

Vorkosigan hits the nail on the the head (well, one of them) in asking about the lack of a community of thinkers (scientist is a nineteenth century word invented because it was only then they felt they needed it) in Islam. The West uniquely had the university, a medieval invention, where a group of scholars became a single and self governing entity. This was possible due to the legel reforms of the eleventh century that made possible the corporation. Toby Huff says this is the single most important advance of the Middle Ages and without it modern society would have been impossible. He may be right.

Islam lacked this as their law was entirely Koranic and allowed for little if any innovasion. Moslems themselves have no hierarchy of structure and the prestige of an imam is entirely his own rather than invested with his position. It made a tradition of continuity and development almost impossible.

Alas, Ray K then appears and spouts all the old myths. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> His point about book burning being an issue is fantasy. I have extensively researched the question and found no evidence that Christians were worse book burners than pagans and that, in particular, there was no campaign against pagan writing per se. If he wants he can read all about it <a href="http://www.bede.org.uk/literature.htm" target="_blank">here</a>.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Bill

To me, this assertion displays an air of ignorance about the storage and transmittal of knowledge in Classical civilization, methods which would eventually find their way into Arab practices.

Marginal notes were certainly nothing new to the Greeks! In fact, one of the problems with attempts to decypher what was written by the original author as opposed to being written by later commentators is the issue that the original author would make revisions using marginal notes, which is the same technique used by later commentators when using copies of the original book for teaching purposes. A copyist hired to produce a copy of the current original would also copy all of the marginal notes, sometimes adding copyist notes of his own. All of this process, occurring time and time again over a period of centuries (the Library at Alexandria was founded around 300 BCE, and the practice was common then and continued through the rest of Classical civilization), led to surviving copies where the original words and the marginal notes have been so blended together that it is frequently difficult to sort them out (this can be said, for instance, about the works of Josephus, which is one of the reasons that the alleged passage(s) about Jesus are so controversial).

Anyway, the scholars of Greece (and the rest of Classical civilization) usually worked in "schools" where they were constantly in the company of other scholars, about as far from the "lonely scholar" idea you are attempting to peddle here as it is possible to get. Certainly, the scholars at the Library in Alexandria were part of a segregated community of scholars, and just as certainly, many scientific advances (such as an early steam engine) came out of the efforts of those scholars.

I think your point about the marginal notes in the book by Copernicus misses the point entirely. It wasn't the marginal notes that greatly aided scientific advancement. That was a practice that was at least 2,000 years old at that time. What was unique at that time was the fact that the book was PRINTED as opposed to being copied by hand. This allowed a large number of geographically dispersed scientists to be able to read, review, and comment on the book at the same time. Thus, the real enhancement in scientific communications is due to the printing press, not the use of marginal notations. This depends entirely upon what you wish to call "science." Certainly, there was a public role for astrologers (which were the precursors to scientific astronomers). And I believe that alchemists were also publicly visible in the Arab civilization (again, those were the precursors to modern chemists). You may well wish to see astrology and alchemy as "not real science," or rather "pseudo-science." But this is a perspective from the 21st century looking backwards 5 to 15 centuries. Even men acknowledged as "great" by modern science had their roots in this sort of pseudo-science. In particular, Johannes Keppler, the great 17th century astronomer, was also a professional astrologer.

So, again, it would appear to me that you are being quite selective about just where you choose to draw your line in order to make your point. I feel that your distinction is rather arbitrary and essentially invalid. I would sure like to know where you are getting the information for your assertion here. Mind you, I don't have any specific contrary facts to offer up, but given the "school" method of the Greeks and Romans, it would literally amaze me to find that the Arabs did not themselves also work in a "school" system of some sort. In fact, I would rather expect it, as the budding young "scientist" of that day would be expected to "apprentice" to a more senior "scientist" of some sort in order to "learn the trade."

Again, I think you are being quite selective in your reading of Arab culture, and are failing to acknowledge that we (Western Civilization) owe a great debt to the Arabs for preserving large chunks of Greco-Roman civilization. Yes, they did it for their own selfish reasons. But this should indicate that the Arabs also valued knowledge, and would preserve the collected knowledge of the ancients as something valuable to keep (as well as to use for building upon). The picture you are attempting to paint of Arab culture is one of utter disdain for science, and I can assure you that this is not the case. Certainly, in the field of mathmatics, we again owe a great debt to the Arabs for inventing our basic number system as well as algebra, number theory, and spherical trigonomotry. I find it difficult to believe that these advances in mathmatics were carried out in isolation, with no practical applications in engineering or scientific disciplines!

=====

Anyway, the great advance of Western Civilization over all of the others to come before it is really the printing press. Once we had that, the whole idea of mass communication could also be invented (leading to the whole idea of "educating the masses" so that they could receive these mass communications). Thus, the second great idea of Western Civilization, which is entirely dependant upon the first, is the matter of popularizing intellectual pursuits so that even the "common man" could engage in them. All us "common folks" would not be here right now discussing this matter if mass communication were not possible.

So, I think that the matters raised are essentially red herrings, and that the real story of why science has advanced so much under Western guidance is the presence of mass means of communication, beginning with the invention of the printing press.

== Bill

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sojourner553:
The reason why the sciences declined during Roman times is because of the influence of Platonic philosophy that taught that observation (ie science) in this world in not important.

Consider also the low status of mechanical and artisanal knowledge in Greco-Roman society, the punishing lack of a zero (so no advanced math), lack of a state-supported mechanism for pushing scientific discovery, the lack of demand among Roman-proto-capitalism for accurate knowledge about the world.....there are lots of reasons.

...internal disruptions from persecutions to force Roman society into Catholicism in the West, which in my opinion was the real cause of the Dark Ages.

Complex events have complex causes. The Church was an important negative factor, but it was just one. There were barbarian invasions, epidemics, the declining fertility of Rome's slave population, changes in Imperial policy (the increasing use of unRomanized barbarians in combat) and so on. No single cause is out there to explain all that.

What REALLY spurred science beyond the small circle of a few scientists-- was the partnering of science with business: Business worked well with toleration. Business needs science.

China had a much more developed capitalist infrastructure much earlier than Europe, but did not develop science. Business might be Necessary but not Sufficient.

While there were important discoveries in China on paper and gunpowder for example, these still remained primarily restricted among small groups.

Very, very not true. Gunpowder was widely used in China's armies, as well as in mining. Paper was perhaps the single most common manufactured item in Chinese society, outside of cooking utensils. It is hard to imagine Chinese society without paper -- paper armor, paper money, toilet paper....

What was missing -- the business or profit motive to fully expand and exploit their potential. (By the way, military use counts as a business use in my definition of "business")

Actually, areas of China were denuded by private business manufacturing paper. Papermaking was one of China's most complex, early, and widespread businesses. But it relied entirely on artisanal methods. Why do you think the Chinese never married artisanal practices with math to produce an important component of the scientific method?

Turning our attention to the ancient world: Hero devised the Steam Engine. But the cheap slave labor meant there was no economical or business use for it.

This is a common explanation, but it is incorrect. Cheap labor is a feature of Chinese society, but the Chinese invented many labor-saving inventions. What about the Greek attitude toward machinery differed from the Renaissance attitude?

The main users of steam technology was in Egyptian temples to perform their miracles of automated moving doors and the like.

Why do you think some eager inventor never noticed possible other applications? Why didn't Hero use steam power to understand heat, like 18th century scientists did? What intellectual framework did late Renaissance society have that Greece lacked?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

To me, this assertion displays an air of ignorance about the storage and transmittal of knowledge in Classical civilization, methods which would eventually find their way into Arab practices.

I did not explain myself clearly. Writing too fast.

Marginal notes were certainly nothing new to the Greeks! .....civilization), led to surviving copies where the original words and the marginal notes have been so blended together that it is frequently difficult to sort them out

The issue isn't that marginal notes existed. The Greeks did not exchange information like the Renassiance and later western scientists did, in the open, with standardized formats, with expectation of credit, with open critique, with the expectation of confirmation/testing against nature. This "social" aspect of knowledge was not a Greek ideal.

Anyway, the scholars of Greece (and the rest of Classical civilization) usually worked in "schools" where they were constantly in the company of other scholars, about as far from the "lonely scholar" idea you are attempting to peddle here as it is possible to get.

Greek scholars worked alone, in the sense that the rich networks of knowledge exchange available to scholars in other societies did not exist. Greek scholars did not concieve their knowledge to be progressive, nor did they see it as an accumulating body to be added to, nor did they have sets of scientific values to guide their knowledge. Nor was Greek knowledge empirically-oriented. The Greeks developed reason, and to a certain extent, objectivity. The Greeks held artisanal knowledge in contempt, and Greek thinkers were generally not builders of things with their own hands. That was for inferiors.

Additionally, Greek "schools" -- I assume you mean schools of thought -- were isolated from one another, were not supported by the state or by Greek mercantile interests, and so on. There was no social role for thinkers in Greece like there is in the West now.

Certainly, the scholars at the Library in Alexandria were part of a segregated community of scholars, and just as certainly, many scientific advances (such as an early steam engine) came out of the efforts of those scholars.

The steam engine of Hero contained no scientific advances whatsoever. None of the Greek thinkers was capable of looking at a machine and seeing it as a metaphor for nature, as western scientists did and still do. Not one Greek thinker looked at a steam engine and attempted to devise a theory of heat, like Carnot. Not one Greek thinker replicated steam engines to study them for any reason at all. Nobody connected with the steam engine rushed the news to others in other fields to see how it could be applied in them. The steam engine led to no new industries, nor did it spur demand for knowledge. The steam engine of Hero was an interesting one-off, unconnected to any later developments in steam engine, heat theory, and science in general.

That is what I mean when I say the Greeks had no concept of science and essentially worked alone, however large the number of people in that adjective "alone" is. The fact is that Greek thinkers did not see themselves ensconced in social networks of knowledge production, like Renassiance and later thinkers. indeed, the whole idea that knowledge could be produced was foreign to Greek thinkers.

I think your point about the marginal notes in the book by Copernicus misses the point entirely.

I'll try to be clearer.

It wasn't the marginal notes that greatly aided scientific advancement. That was a practice that was at least 2,000 years old at that time.

No shit.

What was unique at that time was the fact that the book was PRINTED as opposed to being copied by hand. This allowed a large number of geographically dispersed scientists to be able to read, review, and comment on the book at the same time. Thus, the real enhancement in scientific communications is due to the printing press, not the use of marginal notations

Yes, the press was important. One of many factors.

[QB]I would sure like to know where you are getting the information for your assertion here. [/b]

The "school" system is irrelevant. A school of thought doth not a scientific establishment make.

Again, I think you are being quite selective in your reading of Arab culture, and are failing to acknowledge that we (Western Civilization) owe a great debt to the Arabs for preserving large chunks of Greco-Roman civilization.

After massively acknowledging that debt in many prior posts, you perfectly well that is not true.

I am being selective in my reading of Arab culture; I am refusing to confuse a philosophical school with a scientific establishment.

The picture you are attempting to paint of Arab culture is one of utter disdain for science, and I can assure you that this is not the case. Certainly, in the field of mathmatics, we again owe a great debt to the Arabs for inventing our basic number system as well as algebra, number theory, and spherical trigonomotry. I find it difficult to believe that these advances in mathmatics were carried out in isolation, with no practical applications in engineering or scientific disciplines!

Here is what I said:

• Finally, the Arabs did not develop the set of values that relates to free exchange of information, openness, peer review, and so on. These are crucial to the development of science in the west.

Please review my remarks above. I am well aware that the Arabs made advances in science. They also served as conduits for Greek, Indian and Chinese knowledge to reach the west. Paper, for example, was first manufactured in Europe in the 9th century in Spain, by Arabs.

Making advances in knowledge is not the same as performing science. The issue is whether those in question share the values, goals, methods and social organization of modern science. Obviously, Arabs missed out on many aspects of modern science. Or else we would not call it "western science;" we'd call it "islamic science."

Anyway, the great advance of Western Civilization over all of the others to come before it is really the printing press.

This is not an advance of the west. Printing, and the printing press, is a transmission from China. The Chinese knew about the press but did not use it (not convenient); cultures around them did, however. The oldest extant font, as I recall, is a wooden Uighur font dating from the 14th century.

Thus, the second great idea of Western Civilization, which is entirely dependant upon the first, is the matter of popularizing intellectual pursuits so that even the "common man" could engage in them.

This is incorrect. Popularization of intellectual pursuits was a common feature of Chinese life; look at the enormous mass of printed literature on Buddhism, Taoism, history, and other aspects of Chinese thought. The problem was not popularization of intellectual pursuits, but the null content of said intellectual pursuits, as far as science was concerned.

So, I think that the matters raised are essentially red herrings, and that the real story of why science has advanced so much under Western guidance is the presence of mass means of communication, beginning with the invention of the printing press.

Bill, China had printing earlier and in many more ways than the west. China's intellectual and social culture, and technology base, were far more advanced than the west, much earlier. Given this ineluctable fact, how do you account for the non-rise of science in China?

Vorkosigan

Sojourner553

To: Vorkosigan

True. Aristotle was limited in his scientific endeavors because no one had invented (or even conceived of the idea to invent) a watch, thermometer, telescope, or microscope. None of the physical/chemical laws had been discovered such as the law of gravitation, electricity, pressure, heat, etc. Calculus had not been invented. Part of this was lack of demand. (For example, Archimedes had discovered the laws of buoyancy directly as a result of a problem given him to solve by a king.)

Aristotle seemed very interested in “ultimate” theoretical causes that were mystical in nature such as a rational proof of a Prime Mover. As with most Greek philosophers, he held that experimentation and invention forced one to engage in manual work, which was fit only for slaves and base "mechanics." Per Aristotle, "no man can practice virtue who is living the life of a mechanic or laborer."

No doubt, Aristotle was still somewhat influenced by his former teacher, Plato who taught that “ultimate” truths could never be learned by observation and science. Where Aristotle differed was he held that observation was still useful in accumulating facts about the physical world (although not the spiritual world. Plato found the latter had a larger sphere of influence on the physical world than Aristotle.)

Platonic thought was wildly popular and had a large impact on later Greek society. Mystery religions later became in vogue, following the decline in Athenian society after the Peloponnesian wars. Mystery religions emphasized that this life was not important, and that one should instead prepare for the journey of their immortal soul to the next life

Thus, with all their elaborate logical systems, the Greeks spent relatively little time in systematically observing the physical world around them, as compared to modern day scientists.

The Romans showed some interest in the applied sciences--such as engineering projects and medicine--much of which they had borrowed from the
Greeks. However, as with the Greeks, most Romans intellectuals tended to look towards supernatural-- as opposed to natural causes--in explaining the
world. Their philosophies viewed manual work as vulgar and demeaning. A good example of this, can be seen in the writings of the Roman historian, Plutarch, who PROJECTED the attitude of his times onto the famous Greek inventor, Archimedes. Per Plutarch,

"[Archimedes] possessed so high a spirit, so profound a soul, and such
treasures of scientific knowledge...yet would not deign to leave behind
him any commentary or writing on such subjects; but, repudiating as sordid
and ignoble the whole trade of engineering, and every sort of art that
lends itself to mere use and profit, he placed his whole affection and
ambition in those purer speculations where there can be no reference to
the vulgar needs of life..."

But what explains the lack of DESIRE to even “preserve” SECULAR knowledge, not to mention add to it? There was plenty of desire to preserve religious knowledge!

Is not the answer that medieval society began to follow the Greek Platonic paradigm in looking towards AUTHORITIES (now defined as Christian authorities, as opposed to philosopher kings) to provide the basis for all knowledge. Reason might be applied to these authoritative pronouncements, to answer the question at hand, but not observation and inquiry. No one questioned the premises of the authorities themselves without being severely reprimanded-- or worse, accused of heresy and the promise of eternal damnation for their soul.

One can see this more clearly in comparing the change in mindset from medieval times to the Renaissance! Medieval man had viewed himself as corrupt and helpless. Mankind was incapable of acting for himself, except through the agency of God's grace, as interpreted by Church authorities.

During the Renaissance, this medieval paradigm was replaced by one that viewed humans as receiving the gift of genius from God. God gave selected individuals the divine gift to rise above their curse of original sin-- to boldly chart out their own course in life. The "genius" (borrowing from Neoplatonic thought) was thus heralded as receiving "divine inspiration"
from God--so that now both human ingenuity and God could SHARE together in the act of a new creation. (taken from Kenneth Clark’s CIVILIZATION)

You are saying the profit motive was present in China, but there was no drive for a mechanistic understanding of the basic fundamental forces in nature.

Wouldn’t this be a function of their eastern philosophy that teaches we are all ultimately connected as one collective spirit in the universe, as opposed to being separate entities During the Renaissance/Enlightenment early scientists viewed the universe as operating like a giant machine, of which they could make small models to understand its principles. Even today Chinese medicine emphasizes holistic views - -working with the body as a system, instead of trying to break it down into its separate independent components. According to Chinese philosophy, the sum of the whole IS far more complex and integrated than the sum of all its individual components.

I was saying business helped expand science beyond a small circle of scientists because it created a goal or application for sciences. The small circle of scientists had to have a mindset FIRST to use experimentation to add to the foundation of knowledge – even if this did not answer ultimate questions (usually divinely inspired) of “why” or the “causes” of what something happened. (On this they were influenced by the Arabs and Hindus).

We can look at early scientists and see how their mindset represented a shift from older mainstream paradigms. For example, when Galileo studied the acceleration of fallen bodies, he wrote how, "the cause of the acceleration of the motion of falling bodies is not a necessary part of the investigation."

Likewise, when Isaac Newton came upon his law of gravitation, he had to explain that it was not necessary to understand "why" it worked. Instead,
based upon his experimentation,

"it is enough that gravity really does exist, and acts according to the laws which we have explained, and abundantly serves to account for all the motions of the celestial bodies and of our sea."

The successes of Newton were, during his lifetime, seen to be in direct opposition to the older medieval views of acquiring knowledge. Alexander Pope popularized this within a Renaissnce religious context: "Nature and nature's light were hidden by night/ Then God said "Let Newton be!" and then there was light". Newton's success in applying the "scientific" method, served as an inspiration all over Europe to spur new discoveries in such areas as volume/pressure and electricity. Bu the way, here is where we see the importance of the printing press to disseminate this new knowledge (Bill's point.)

In summary: The philosophical mindset of studying natural causes (as opposed to divine or "ultimate" causes) had to be present first!
But both the military and business then played a part in conceiving of new applications using this research.


Excellent point RE: gunpowder. I have read the opposite; but very possibly from sources that were not as well informed as you. I have not had DETAILED readings in this area, so I am grateful for your feedback.

Interesting, with their technological advantage of gunpowder in war, the Chinese did not appear interested in conquering Europe. Again, I suspect as eastern philosophies are more inwardly driven this is a factor. (?) I have also not seen the same drive for profits – ie the “bigger is better mentality that one sees in the West. Was it also their culture of being xenophobic that dampened their “desire” to expand to the very limit of all boundaries?

Again (I repeat myself some here) I think this was due to their philosophy.

Greek science could thus be more characterized as relating to philosophical speculation on "why" things existed, as opposed to practical tests searching into "how" things really worked. Platonic philosophers generally held the sciences and technology in disdain, as they were primarily interested in matters of man's spirit. Stoic philosophers were primarily interested in matters of ethics. Like the Platonists, Aristotle was caught up in a spiritual paradigm on the inter-workings of the universe-- seeing the universe as a naturalistic organism whose events had ultimate "causes" or purpose. Aristotle's doctrine of causes, especially his "final" cause, was taken up by later Judaic- Christian medieval theologians-- because it easily fit into a doctrine of "First" Cause and its proof for a cosmic god

This first had to be a demand or idea for such applications. Egyptian priests had for centuries/millennium used technology to create mechanisms (such as automated opening and closing of doors) to give the impression of divine miracles being engaged within the Temples. When people conceived of fast transportation, they dreamed of “flying horses” and the like.

================================================== =================
There has to be a vision for the application of science. Take the space program as one example. Nazi Germany conceived of using rockets for military purposes. Communist Russia was the first to fully envision launching men into space and developing the science to do so.

The US space program was in direct reaction (competition) to the Soviets, and fear of its military potential for space weapons. The space program spurred new research into the areas that produced new business applications – including new materials and satellite telecommunications.

The US space program is stagnating. Bush’s new NASA administrator, Sean O'Keafe, is a narrow bureaucrat with “no vision for space”. His future goals are to drastically halt the number of missions, cut/privatize shuttle missions and possibly lay off astronauts/close NASA centers. Without government sponsorship, it is unlikely business will pick up the slack in the near future, because as of yet, no one has conceived of a business venture in space that will generate a profit. (This despite the important influence of science fiction like Star Trek to excite many scientists/engineer nerd types into envisioning/conceiving of new space-related projects.)

Now so far I haven’t talked about the importance of a free, tolerant society: Why did the Soviet communist system stagnate (ie before it collapsed)? For the same reason their businesses did. Their fundamentalist atheist leaders did not allow a environment for the free exchange of ideas, plus tried to tightly run all levels of society with a corrupt bureaucracy.

By the way, the decline of Islamic science perfectly parallels when Islamic society turned fundamentalist in religion and intolerant toward other points of views. (I have read this was in direct reaction to the violence of the Crusades). I think it no coincidence that Christian Dark Ages in the west also parallels the period when Catholic fundamentalists held tight control over society by their control over education and promoted the mindset that only authorities held the reigns to true knowledge. Per St. Augustine: "The ancient world and the Fathers have spoken: the debate is over!"

Sojourner

[ April 30, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Wouldn’t this be a function of their eastern philosophy that teaches we are all ultimately connected as one collective spirit in the universe, as opposed to being separate entities During the Renaissance/Enlightenment early scientists viewed the universe as operating like a giant machine, of which they could make small models to understand its principles. Even today Chinese medicine emphasizes holistic views - -working with the body as a system, instead of trying to break it down into its separate independent components. According to Chinese philosophy, the sum of the whole IS far more complex and integrated than the sum of all its individual components.

This, I think, is the mirror image of Bede's assertion about theology and science. It constructs a monolithic thing ("Chinese Philosophy") that doesn't really exist; in addition your construction strikes me as Orientalization ("they" are the opposite of "us"), largely myth. Just as with Christian theology in the late medieval period, there were many forms of Chinese philosophical thinking. It would not be difficult to find one that, in some basic way, was compatible with proto-scientific thinking. And certain aspects of Chinese philosophy (just as it is not difficult to find theological positions that could be construed to support the emergence of science) also seem congenial to science. Taoists emphasized contact with the world. Confucians emphasized rationalism.

You'd be on better ground if you simply pointed to concrete intellectual trends in Chinese society. For reasons I still do not understand, in Chinese society math had low social status. Consequently, it did not appear on the imperial exams (or vice versa, don't know which way causation ran). Chinese alchemy was, after the 2nd century AD, increasingly controlled not by empirical observation and formula, but by its relationship with the Yi Ching. The "Why" of these fascinates, but they seem simply to be historical accidents. Why didn't science evolve in China? Perhaps its as simple as the Tartar and Mongol invasions wiping out the native knowledge production base and decapitating Chinese culture. The Ming never attained the heights of the Song.

I am wary of looking to philosophy and theology as "causitive" factors because they themselves have roots elsewhere: they are not uncaused. To me, instead, they tend to reflect social trends, the way that today one hears the phrase "Christian tolerance," a phrase that would have been unthinkable in the Dark Ages or the Medieval period and is entire a secular ethic absorbed into liberal Christianity, or the way the Vatican finally made slavery illegal in 1917, or the way Mormons recently decided blacks were people too.

Rambling, I'm just rambling. I'll stop now.

Vorkosigan