Butters

Great site Sojouner,
I particularly liked this,


A group of medieval scholars were debating how many teeth were in a horse's
mouth. To answer the question, each person stood up and cited their favorite
authority--but there was sill NO agreement. A junior member of the group,
then suggested that the group should go outside and simply "COUNT" a horse's
teeth--to resolve the question once and for all! Upon hearing this, the rest
of the group became so alarmed that, according to the manuscript, they "fell
upon him, smote him hip and thigh, and cast him from the company of educated
men." (as quoted by James Trefil, READING THE MIND OF GOD, IN SEARCH OF THE
PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, 1989, pp33-4).

I agree that Plato had a large influence in impeding science, but he was one of many factors involved.

NOGO

I do not believe that Christians needed the Platonic paradigm to look towards authorities. The Jews looked to their Bible for all truths and you can't have greater authority than God himself. Christians inherited the idea that the Bible is the word of God and some still look to it for all truths.

All this debate about evolution is the confrontation of authority verses observervation. This is the newest horse and Christians still do not know how many teeth it has.

To blame Plato and not seeing the same problem fundamental with Christianity is IMO a distortion of history. Most Christians today know better however consider the centuries and the numerous defeats. IMO breaking the authority of the Bible was far more difficult than breaking the authority of some ancient thinker.

Vorkosigan

Butter, this urban legend/story goes back to the greeks. I even read it in a science fiction story dating from the 1950s. "That damn Greek, Japp!" Isn't it originally from Herodotus?

Vorkosigan

Sojourner553

It is not from Herodotus. Nor have I heard any reference to this applied to the Greeks.

Sources please, if you have any. (I would be very interested.) Remember any more details from your 1950's sci fiction story that are relevent???


Instead the source of this story is taken from a compilation of science essays attributed to Francis Bacon.

Below is the actual text:

"HORSE'S TEETH

In the year of our Lord 1432, there arose a grievous quarrel among
the brethren over the number of teeth in the mouth of a horse. For
thirteen days the disputation raged without ceasing. All the
ancient books and chronicles were fetched out, and wonderful and
ponderous erudition such as was never before heard of in this
region was made manifest. At the beginning of the fourteenth day,
a youthful friar of goodly bearing asked his learned superiors for
permission to add a word, and straightway, to the wonderment of the
disputants, whose deep wisdom he sore vexed, he beseeched them to
unbend in a manner coarse and unheard-of and to look in the open
mouth of a horse and find answer to their questionings. At this,
their dignity being grievously hurt, they waxed exceeding wroth;
and, joining in a mighty uproar, they flew upon him and smote him,
hip and thigh, and cast him out forthwith. For, said they, surely
Satan hath tempted this bold neophyte to declare unholy and
unheard-of ways of finding truth, contrary to all the teachings of
the fathers. After many days more of grievous strife, the dove of
peace sat on the assembly, and they as one man declaring the
problem to be an everlasting mystery because of a grievous dearth
of historical and theological evidence thereof, so ordered the same
writ down.

Francis Bacon, 1592"

It is true that there are no details from Bacon's excerpt except for the date (for example names and place are absent.)

If this was a parody as opposed to a historical incidence he had heard of, it is possibly how one of the earliest rational philosophers viewed the lack of scientific inquiry a century and a half earlier, compared to his own era.

Remember it was Francis Bacon's NOVUM ORGANUM (1620), that proposed a radical new paradigm for scientific inquiry: Instead of Aristotle's a priori, deductive syllogism, Bacon proposed in its place using an inductive or "a posteriori"
method. (Bacon still followed Aristotle by seeing science as the "discovery of causes", specifically its physical properties (such as temperature, color, etc).

According to Bacon, scientific inquiry entails observing and collecting experiences, analyzing those based on what is known, and then acting on the most reliable results.

Again, we do not see this this outlook a century and a half earlier -- regardless if whether or not it went to this extreme (of not counting the teeth of horses to find how many they had).

For example, I understand it was a common medieval belief that women had one less rib than men because of the authority of the Bible (ie Genesis.)

Sojourner

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Sojourner553

Er. NOGO. The post I was replying to asked why the Greeks did not advance more in the sciences, especially in the later centuries before the Christian era.

I think you are getting on pretty weak ground if you want to blame Christianity for this too -- since it wasn't even around then.

As for the Jews, it is true they had their authorities, but this was pretty much splintered and there was relatively more freedom allowed in differing opinions. Indeed, I have always loved the Jewish joke that if you have FOUR Jews in a room discussing religion (or politics), you will have FIVE different opinions.

Sojourner

Vorkosigan

You're right Sojourn, I got my stories confused. So many boners lately! That will teach me to post at midnight after driving six hours!

Bede

Sojourner,

Bacon was probably making this up. There are a lot of stories like this. Galileo invents the case of some physicians not believing what they see because it is not in Galen, the angels on a pin head myth comes from Joseph Glanville and Erasmus (Bacon's close friend) wrote in Praise of Folly to mock scholastics (some of which you quoted as fact earlier in this thread). Let's actually hold the same standards of proof for anti-Christian stories as we do for Christian ones. Either find a reliable (ie fifteenth century and non-hostile) account of this or edit your site yo make clear it is probably a myth and is intended as a Renaissance parody and that you should not be using it as a genuine example of medieval thought. Otherwise, I would have to assume you are only interested in finding facts, no matter how dodgy, that confirm your existing prejudices.

Yours

Bede

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

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>

Sojourner553

I agree with you that I should make this clear that-- while this story was found among the scientific writings of Francis Bacon-- there is a significant probability that this was a parody of Scholasticism and not a historical fact.

Now I have a tremendous respect for Francis Bacon -- which I can only assume you do too. That is why I find it puzzling that if it were a parody, then WHY did he put a year date on it? Historical records are often pretty bleak during this period. But on the other hand, even if true, this could have been an oral story that he heard, which also meant it "could" have been an exaggeration, etc.

Now, IF there were no specific year given in the story AND if it were not from as respected as source as Bacon, THEN I would agree with you that the odds of it being an all out parody would be close to 100%. These are the main two reasons why I continue to hedge on this.


By the way: You did not comment on my statement that during medieval times, it was commonly held that women had one less rib than men because of the authority given to the Genesis story of Adam and Eve.

Now I, of course, agree both pagans and early Christians had strict strictures against performing autopsies on corpses (which is a good place to count ribs). But you would think medieval doctors performing surgeries/setting broken bones would have noticed women had the same number of ribs as men. Not to mention you can count ribs on skinny people (ie, who are not dead)-- and there should have been a lot of skinny poor people during medieval times...

In short, this exercise should not have been so much more difficult than counting the teeth in a horse's mouth.

Yours,
Sojourner

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

lpetrich

Actually, it's men having one less rib than women.

This notion was debunked <a href="http://penelope.uchicago.edu/pseudodoxia/pseudo72.html" target="_blank">back in 1646 by Sir Thomas Browne (Pseudodoxia Epidemica)</a>. He noted that both sexes have the same number of ribs: 24 (12 pairs). And also that mutilations are not inherited.

That book also contains some other interesting debunking.

[ November 17, 2002: Message edited by: lpetrich ]</p>

Bede

Sojourner,

This would be the same Bacon who confessed to taking bribes while a judge? Your propensity to see everything in black and white and divide everyone into goodies and baddies has let you down again.

There is a certain irony in all this. You quote a story to mock medievals for relying on authority which you believe on the basis of the authority of a man who is a convicted bribe taker. Perhaps it would be best to cut this episode out of your work completely (together with any other similar myths) to prevent simple minded folk like NOGO using you as an authority for myths.

As for Adam's Rib, I can't opine except to note that it would not be in Galen and so perhaps not believed by scholastics. Perhaps if we had a bit more than another seventeenth century writer to go on, it would be clearer. Do you have any sources or, dare I say, authorities?

Ipetrich,

Thanks for the link to the truly wonderful Sir Thomas. I particularly enjoyed his debunking the ridiculous notion that Adam and Eve had navels. On a more serious note, I see he doesn't waste ink showing the earth isn't flat (unless I missed it) which suggests it was not a popular delusion. I suppose, by that time, it isn't very surprising but some mention might have shed light on vulgar medieval attitudes that NOGO still has trouble with.

Yours

Bede

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