Vorkosigan

Nice move, Bede. First it was Christianity, now it is just Latin Christianity. Thus we avoid the whole problem of why other Christian societies failed to produce modern science, and in Europe, certain countries like Spain were left out of it entirely, simply by redefining what you mean when you say "Christianity."

Vorkosigan

Freethinking Ferret

When you tout xianity and renaissance Europe as the incubators for science and the scientific method, not only do you ignore Aristotle, who (in my humble opinion) invented what everntually came to be known as the western world's scientific method; you ignore the scientific thinking and advances made in Asia. In India, the scientific method was developed and used more than a thousand years before the enlightenment:

- <a href="http://india_resource.tripod.com/scienceh.htm" target="_blank">http://india_resource.tripod.com/scienceh.htm</a>

As well, you're ignoring the contributions made by Arabic society leading up to the Renaissance:

- <a href="http://www.phys.jyu.fi/homepages/agar/arabs.html" target="_blank">http://www.phys.jyu.fi/homepages/agar/arabs.html</a>

- <a href="http://users.erols.com/zenithco/haitham.html" target="_blank">http://users.erols.com/zenithco/haitham.html</a>

I dunno... call me crazy, call me kooky, but it seems like mostly ethnocentrism that puts European/xian culture at the forefront of scientific discovery.

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Freethinking Ferret ]</p>

ohwilleke

In previous debates, Bede has claimed that everybody before the Christians weren't really doing "Science" they were merely tinkering (i.e. just doing mere engineering), which is just about a fine a hair as distinguishing "Latin" science from other science. More quasi-nationalism than substance.

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.

The early Christian Orthodox Church (which persecuted all other Christian sects out of existance) incorporated Plato's philosophies into their own doctrines, denigrating science, causing 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.

I disagree with those (including Bede) who claim external barbarian invaders were the "cause" of the Dark Ages in Europe.

To tie in this theme with Eiseley's thesis: I think Protestants did play a part in bringing science back AND making it stronger. But it is for a different reason than Eiseley. He lists capitalism and science separately. I think it was the COMBINATION OF SCIENCE WITH BUSINESS that gave it the important impetus.


Why?

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.

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

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

So again, the missing ingredient was the drive spurred by the profit motive in Business.

These three areas: Toleration, Business, and Science are what kicked off the science revolution, reinforcing each other - making each other stronger as a result. For business is stronger where there is science, science is stronger where there is toleration, etc.)

=============================
(excerpt)

How Religious Toleration was "Good" Business

Actually it was "good" business to allow religious toleration. Holland had been one of the most prosperous AND tolerant countries during the 16th and 17th centuries. Whereas Jews were expelled out of many countries in Europe, Holland had opened up its borders to them and other persecuted religious groups. Holland's thriving business was seen by many to be the result of its tolerant atmosphere for diverse religious groups. During the 1650's,Oliver Cromwell readmitted Jews to England after centuries of expulsion--largely in recognition of their skill as businessmen and merchants.

Voltaire wrote a century later, how the desire for profit brought men of diverse religious backgrounds together in cooperation:


"Go into the London Stock Exchange--a more respectable place than many a court--and you will see representatives from all nations gathered together for the utility of men. Here Jew, Mohammedan and Christian

deal with each other as though they were all of the same faith, and only apply the word infidel to people who go bankrupt. Here the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist and the Anglican accepts a promise from the Quaker. On leaving these peaceful and free assemblies some
go to the Synagogue and others for a drink...and everybody is happy."


Growth of English Philosophy and Science


English philosophy AND science thrived in such a free and open environment. During this time, Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1726) developed important basic principles in calculus and physics which revolutionized mathematics and science-- forming an important foundation on which other sciences could build. Newton's success in applying the "scientific" method, helped, in turn, to inspire other scientists all over Europe to make new discoveries. (For example, chemistry made important advances with Robert Boyle's discovery
of the relationship between gas volume and pressure. In Italy, Volta and Galvani made important discoveries in the areas of batteries and electricity.

Benjamin Franklin, in America, proved the connection between lightning and electricity, and invented the lightening rod.)


The English Royal Society was chartered in 1662. The French Academy was formed in 1666. Through the existence of these and other academic groups in other countries, scientific information became organized through respectable bodies, which published their findings. Observatories and museums were constructed.--Paris and Greenwich observatories were founded in the 1660's and 1670's and the Oxford Museum was established in 1683. This popularized science and in turn, stimulated more scientific research. The effect of the new science, helped to engender a climate of toleration. For while most of the new scientists were religious, many belonged to different Christian sects. Science encouraged one to put aside one's personal opinions, in the common pursuit and betterment of human knowledge and understanding.

(excerpt taken from:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/VOLTAIRE.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/VOLTAIRE.TXT</a>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sojourner

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

[ April 26, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

This thread is a bit of a disappointment.

Ohwilleke remembers our previous conversations when Michael and I made the point that modern science, that developed only in western Europe and spread from there to other parts of the world, is very different from the proto-science of Greece, Islam, China, India and also medieval Europe. The question is why did it happen only in the West. He doesn't seem interested.

If freethinking ferret had read my linked article he would know I give full credit to Islam and Greece, but in the end they didn't make the leap to modern science. Can he say why? In fact, the ferret seems to want to give full credit to everyone except Christians which rather gives away his biases.

Vorkosigan gets annoyed that I pick on Latin Christianity which shows he clearly dislikes finessed arguments. If he had read my work he'd also know that my position is consistant and had has been for some years.

The idea that Christianity helped bring about the rise in science is something that many atheists hate to be faced with. It suggests their own mythology of science is wrong and like everybody else, they don't like their cherished myths exposed to the light of enquiry.

The sojourner and I will have to agree to disagree on the cause of the Dark Ages which is a separate topic. I must note however, that even the fiercely anti Christian polemicist, William Manchester, blames the barbarian invasions. Mind you, it would be the only accurate thing is his book, A World Lit only by Fire, so probably not worth much as evidence.

Yours

Bede

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

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bede:
Vorkosigan gets annoyed that I pick on Latin Christianity which shows he clearly dislikes finessed arguments. If he had read my work he'd also know that my position is consistant and had has been for some years.

Having interacted with you on many occasions, and never yet having seen you make this distinction....

I must note however, that even the fiercely anti Christian polemicist, William Manchester, blames the barbarian invasions. Mind you, it would be the only accurate thing is his book, A World Lit only by Fire, so probably not worth much as evidence.

That would be consistent with his other works as well...

Freethinking Ferret

First of all, my post wasn't in response to you, but to the original post, in which it was stated "The Christian world gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself." I suppose we've now moved out of the realm of ethnocentrism and into the realm of egocentrism.

Secondly, I think it's a bit presumtuous of you to assume where my "biases" lie. As a student of physics, I have much respect for xian scientists such as Newton. I give them full credit for the amazing work done in the past 500 years. But that simply isn't the issue here: the issue is the line "The Christian world gave birth in a clear articulate fashion to the experimental method of science itself."

In light of that statement, I don't want to give "full credit" to anyone except the first group that employed the scientific method, the "experimental method of science itself". The scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Now, referring to my first quote on Arabic science:
Sounds (to me) like Alzahen was employing the scientific method (condition four being fulfilled by numerous other Arabic scientists: see <a href="http://cyberistan.org/islamic/" target="_blank">http://cyberistan.org/islamic/</a> ). And since he was doing so at the turn of the first millennium, I think it is entirely possible that science in the Christian world is not the birthplace of the scientific method and modern science, but simply borrowed and built upon what the Arabs and Asians (indirectly, since Arab science borrows from Asian) had previously done.

If any biases are apparent here, it is in your need to stretch the facts and ignore the truly scientific work of pre-xian cultures. Perhaps you can explain exatly why it is you think that Arabic science is not done using the modern scientific method, since you only make passing reference to Arabs in the essay you linked to (hardly what I would call "full credit" in light of their achievements).

I realize this must be terribly boring to you, but humor me.

Vorkosigan

If any biases are apparent here, it is in your need to stretch the facts and ignore the truly scientific work of pre-xian cultures. Perhaps you can explain exatly why it is you think that Arabic science is not done using the modern scientific method, since you only make passing reference to Arabs in the essay you linked to (hardly what I would call "full credit" in light of their achievements).

Arab science missed being modern science for a couple of reasons. First, the Arab investigators, while grasping the essence of the scientific method (which would later be transmitted to Europe, where Galileo, Harvey, and others would hear of it) were not linked in networks of social exchange that enabled them to develop the positive feedback systems that characterize modern science. The Arabs had the same problem as the Greeks: they were essentially working alone. One major European innovation was the exchange of ideas. For example, Copernicus' book was printed with extra wide margins (by coincidence). Scientists from all over Europe made notes in the margins and sent them to each other.

Additionally, the Arabs did not develop a social space for science, a role called "scientist" that was publicly recognized and rewarded.

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.

Vorkosigan

schu

If the xian world is so swift on science how do you explain young world creationists who wouldn't know science when it slaps them up the side of the head?

Ray K

Well, it could be because of all the Greek "pagan" books burned by the early Christians, and the systematic deconstruction of Greek culture by those same Christians.

It is very clear that philosophy and science began in ancient Greece. Their knowledge was preserved by Arab scholars while Christians were burning everything that they could get their hands on.

It wasn't until the 13th century when Greek science made its way back to Christian Europe, and soon universities were established across the continent to teach Aristotelian science. The Church took a newfound tolerant position towards this pagan knowledge, most likely because the Muslims had been using it to severely kick Christian butt in the Crusades and they needed to catch up.

Christians, Catholic and Protestant, have nevertheless resisted the advances and theological implications of science every step of the way. Galileo, Newton, Darwin... all great scientists that have been vilified by Christians because of their discoveries.

Now that the benefits of science are impossible for anyone to ignore, Christianity now wants to take credit for something it has tried to destroy for centuries.

Forgive me if I point out what a complete and utter load of bullshit that is.