Bede

Sojourner,

Thank goodness we have slowed down a bit.

On Frankie B, I said I had looked in his Essays and the story is not there. Hence your attribution appears to be false. If you do not have another one which we can check, you really cannot claim that the story is Bacon's. Including it in your work when it has no providence is the 'poisoning the well' fallacy as NOGO's response to it proved. Unless we can track it down, it really must be totally removed unless you include it in a chapter on later myths about the Middle Ages. You said the scholastics made themselves look foolish but your prime example is a myth and the rib example is hearsay. If you can find a scholastic who says Adam has less ribs (we only have evidence of it being a popular belief in the 17th century) we have evidence. Otherwise, we do not. I do fear you negative attitude towards scholastics is based on later misrepresentation of them because even after we dispose of your examples, you still cling to it (BTW the angels on pin heads is also a 17th century myth from Joseph Glanville; they did sometimes ask if angels were material beings but frankly, I do not see how you can mock that without being anachronistic).

On anatomy, you should realise that the taboo against dissection is near universal and not even religious per se. In the UK, now a totally secular country, we recently had the first public human dissection for two centuries and many of those who complained were scientists. The Church allowing dissections in the late medieval period is an example of exceptional open mindedness. If you want to sing people's praises, this is a good place to start.

While I have no objection to using other authorities, John Barrow is a physicist. It would be helpful to stick to historians when discussing history. A historian would know that that not using the Bible for natural philosophy was widely recognised from the 1100s onwards and is made explicit by the likes of William of Conches. Augustine himself insists in On Christian Doctrine that the Bible does not always need to be taken literally. The Renaissance cult of genius starts with Vasari in the late sixteenth century and has nothing to do with science - although in the late seventeenth century we begin to see scientific hagiography appearing as science starts to invent its own foundation myths. Also, looking at your quoted passage it is unclear what is by you and what is by Barrow. In it, a passage from Galileo's letter to Grand Duchess Christiana is said to have made Urban VIII angry. This seems to be playing fast and loose with the facts.

Yours

Bede

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

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>

Bede

BTW, you might enjoy this debate:

<a href="http://www.lrb.co.uk/enduringfreedom/index.php" target="_blank">http://www.lrb.co.uk/enduringfreedom/index.php</a>

Tariq Ali, Christopher Hitchens and a few others in debate. Hitch is on fine form.

B

Sojourner553

Bede,

I really didn’t want to get into this again, but here goes:

Do you not agree, that clerical errors can creep up – especially those of FORM-- meaning exact names, dates, or places. I make them, you make them, from what I have read everyone makes them (unless one has a lot of time or more likely colleagues/assistants who have combed through one's works to weed out all of these type of clerical errors.)

Why do you pretend this does not take place? Typically, I tell the person first of the error and allow them to correct it. Then we both sit back and analyze the SUBSTANCE or ideas/meaning of what we have left.

If you wish to change this standard, Bede, to instead proclaim that when a person makes ANY minor clerical error in their statement, that this automatically INVALIDATES their entire argument, then I wish this rule to be made up front so that we can apply it BOTH WAYS.

I might remind you, though, that if you really choose we take the perfection route – proclaiming yourself on the side of the divine should mean you have an even HIGHER STANDARD for yourself than everyone else, and I will help point out when you have not met this higher standard.

Let’s take an example of an error you made in the last post


”I” did not say this. I cut and pasted the full paragraph from your LINK – to demonstrate that your source who suspected the Francis Bacon story was a parody ALSO thought the scholastics were foolish. It was in quotes Bede.

It was meant as a “Hey -- look at EVERYTHING your own source” says -- don’t just pick and choose among it.

I made this clear in my post that I was quoting from your link. It sounds like you did not read over the link you sent me, not to mention you did not read my post more than cursory – if you did not know this.

Why not ask me first next time if this is my true opinion, BEFORE YOU START ASSUMING/ SHOWING ANGER?
Actually I am interested if Francis Bacon did not write this. I don’t think not finding this on the net is a very thorough test for this. Now isn’t it more likely it is not there because this did not fall under Francis Bacon’s general philosophical works?

The link you provided showed the story was signed by Francis Bacon. He did not question that the essay was found among his scientific writings – but he was suspicious that say an assistant might have attributed this to him.


Again, if this is your standard--ie if we require 100% verification-- we can throw out a good number of old historical works. Hey, we do not even have independent 100% verification of who the bible authors were, or what part of their texts were tampered with.
Throw them out???

That means that probabilities are what we have to deal with in names, dates, and places, documenting these where we can. Ideas are what count!

Now if you find proof that the essay was indeed a forgery, I am interested. But currently I think this is a gray area (like biblical authenticity)

Actually I saw this as applying to a far larger group than Scholastics. I am not naturally prejudiced, so maybe a valid argument might be that OTHERS who read this could be prejudiced from this.

I believe a good number of Scholastics were brilliant. True, some built sand castles in the sky base on fallacious inputs. Others were brilliant skeptics too. (I read some of the Scholastic critiques of Anselm -- scathing and accurate).

I saw the story as symbolizing a person who is obedient to authority without engaging their reasoning capacity. This transcends religion—and has a strong secular counterpart –It describes the Nazis, it describes the bureaucrat in an office who cites rules rather than tries to help.

Regarding the angels on a pin post: I should have known when I went through everything I had previously written/collected and saw ZERO references to it anywhere, there was a reason for this. Therefore I should not have made that statement a few posts back on the Secular Web, as this was a parody by someone. Some of the beliefs were silly by today's standards. But I need to pick an accurate one. I have never included this in any of my formal writings, and should not have been writing from memory that night on the web.

Regarding the rib story:
If you agree the rib story was a popular belief in the 17th century, why WOULDN’T it be a popular belief in earlier centuries, as well??? Was the 17th century a throwback from a more knowledgable age into a more superstitious period, or something?

Here you are in error again attributing an outlook to me, I do not have.

First, this angle was not relevant in the context I mentioned it – it was not even a criticism in my mind. The only reason I threw in the Greco-Roman religious views, was so it wouldn’t appear to be a criticism. I do think the religious angle was entangled with a genuine moral concern that back then there was a fear that a person being dissected on wasn’t really dead but in a coma.

Wasn't that due to the public natue of the dissection, not
whether dissections should be undertaken for medical
knowledge, cause of death, etc? I do not see how any of this
is relevant.

I really find this part of the discourse absurd, because in my mind I did not mean to imply I was being critical of it here. Am I reading your tone right? It sounds like you are getting apoplexy, Bede, imputing insults where more often than not, none is meant. Again maybe I am reading the tone wrong.

I get it! We just count the good stuff, and don’t count the bad stuff. Smile. Why not count both sides, then net them out.


Glad you agree there was no science in the West from 400-1100 AD.

I don't think this should be glossed over--however. As if 700 years was not really important!

Even after 1100, I disagree. Natuaral Philosophy was required to be a
handmaiden to Theology – ie not allowed to go past set limits.
Thomas Aquinas helped reconcile faith and natural philosophy, by arguing that if there was ny discrepancy between the two, natural philosophy should be appropriately SUBORDINATED to faith (or, "revealed" truth). Faith was the SUPERIOR method of obtaining true knowledge-- but logic and reasoning were also good supplements to faith, when discrepancies appear. Aquinas envisioned a system of logic with the revealed truths of Christian theology at the top, philosophy in the middle, and scientific knowledge at the base.

Only to justify what an absolute religious authority (ie bishop/pope) should dictate the proper "correct" interpretation for everyone else to allow.

We need to get into details, before you start making high level statements.


I was in a hurry and tired. This was the last thing I posted. I was paraphrasing in areas, but all the quotes, facts, and ideas were from Barrow. I do tend to focus more on
substance (ideas) than form (attributions.)

This came from Barrow too, I believe.

But to me, this is an example of an error in form and not substance.
Let's look at the details:

Following Galileo's letter to Christina, Galileo was called to Rome to explain his actions and was given an ultimatum to halt. Based on this year, this was no doubt under Pope Paul V and not Pope Urban III.

Still, would you argue BOTH popes were happy with Galileo (ie not angry). For:

As a direct result of Galileo’s letter to Christina In 1615, Galileo was summoned before the Inquisition. After a month of deliberation, the court rendered a unanimous decision:

"The first proposition, that the sun is the center and does not revolve
around the earth, is foolish, absurd, false in theory, and heretical,
because expressly contrary to Holy Scripture...[T]he second proposition,
that the earth is not the center but revolves around the sun, is absurd,
false in philosophy, and, from a theological point of view at least,
opposed to the true faith."

Galileo agreed to recant during this time. Do you think this was done without threats Bede?

Pope Urban III later had Galileo sent to Rome in chains following his DIALOGO in 1632. (In the book Galileo also had an unflattering parody of the pope under the name of a simpleton – which was no doubt another cause of him being angry)

Galileo had to swear to save himself from torture/death that the Copernican theory was false:

“I swear that I will never more in future say or assert anything verbally,
or in writing, which may give rise to a similar suspicion of me... But
if it shall happen that I violate any of my said promises, oaths and
protestations (which God avert!), I subject myself to all the pain and
punishments which have been decreed...against delinquents of this
description."

Actually -- I am disappointed you bypassed the real point of my essay by Barrow:

Early scientists such as Galileo had to justify that their endeavor to understand "how" something worked added to our foundation of knowledge-- even if this did NOT answer the ultimate questions of "why" --ie, the "CAUSES" of
why it happened.

This was the real issue and I think the true key to understanding how the sciences grew to become strong in the West.

Sojourner

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Bede

Hi Sojourner,

I am not trying to be a bastard here, but I am worried that although you say we must drill down to the facts before making high level statements, we are often finding your facts are simply wrong. The first duty of a historian is to get her facts right and if she does not, her credibility will inevitably suffer. We are not talking about clerical errors, we are talking about practically every example you have offered. If you make a statement (such as Bacon wrote about Horse's Teeth) it is up to you to prove it by giving a valid citation. It is not acceptable to say I have to search every last manuscript of Bacon's works to prove it is not there.

As for ribs, no it is not acceptable to say that something debunked in a popular 17th century work must have been believed by intellectuals in previous centuries. What you need is a scholastic text that states men have one rib less (not likely even on a totally literalistic interpretation as if you chop my hand off my kids will still have two hands). Polemicists attacking strawmen is not good enough.

On anatomy, I do think the current hoohaa in London is to point, but of course, doesn't tell us much about the Middle Ages. You said 'religious' Graeco-Roman views so it is not wrong for me to call you on views on anatomy not having their origins in religion. Just leave religion out of anatomy altogether (incidently, your site states Vesalius was sent on a pilgramage by the Inquisition - this is also untrue as shown by C Donald O'Malley's study of the sources in ISIS 45:2. The Inquisition was not involved - Vesalius went on the pilgrimage in order to leave the King of Spain's service which he hated. You couldn't resign from a royal post, but also the King couldn't refuse a request to go on a pilgrimage).

You state in your last post that Galileo was brought to Rome in chains - untrue again. A clerical error is writing Urban III when you meant Urban VIII. That is no problem and needs no comment. To state Galileo was brought in chains is an error of fact that significantly effects the colour of the story.

Finally, the 'how versus why' question was not a breakthrough of the Renaissance but rather a debate between the two major schools of New philosophy. As I hope you know, it was Descartes and his followers who insisted that you had to have a mechanical explanation for anything to be scientific. Gravity patently did not have one (Newton called it an occult (ie hidden) force) which the Cartesians were just not going to buy as they saw this as a throw back to the bad old days of Platonic magic. In other words what Barrow suggests is a new idea in the Renaissance is nothing of the sort - it is just the latest round in an age old debate now being fought between the giants of the new philosophy.

Let's move back to the pre-1100 period - we keep getting distracted! You are going to show that the effective lack of science (which we both accept despite some honourable efforts by Isidore, Bede and a few others) was due to the Christian church that caused/prolonged the Dark Ages. I look forward to it but I will be challenging facts you present that seem unlikely to me.

Yours

Bede

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

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Bede ]</p>

Bede

A quickie on the 'how v why' as I really don't want to get bogged down:

The mechanicalists like Descartes (and Galileo too, quite often) insisted that there was no action at a distance which sadly gravity does appear to be. I almost sense some embarrassment about this from Galileo as if he is trying to avoid a difficult question. The scepticism about causation reminds me of the Ockhamist position of the fourteenth century and the anti-Aristotle arguments by Moslems like Al-Ghazali (the 'conservative forces' in Sojourner's posts). They also insisted that you cannot sensibly find causes - the best you can do is state facts about the world. Descartes rejected this and, like most New Philosophers, insisted we could figure out causes as they were all physical interactions that could be studied. Eventually, Hume proved that the sceptics were right but by then induction had worked its magic and we were all happy to accept causes without worrying too much about their metaphysical status.

Yours

Bede

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

Vorkosigan

No, Hume didn't. Hume just showed that the science of his day couldn't explain how it was humans made inductions. He did not prove that such inductions were fundamentally inaccurate.

Vorkosigan

Bede

He did a bit more than that, I think. He showed that we cannot prove a cause/effect relationship. All we can do is associate particular events and thus postulate that one is the cause of the other. I have yet to see a refutation of this point in its own terms although I am quite happy to accept that in practice it does not present a problem. Postulated causes are just as good as real ones if they seem to work.

So I agree with your second sentence, that Hume did not show inductions were wrong.

B

Sojourner553

LOL!

Bede is defending the great skeptic Hume, and Vork is attacking Hume.

Actually, I think Bede is technically correct in agreeing with Hume that induction cannot give 100% accuracy.

The example I have seen given for this applied to science -- goes something as follows:

Just because the earth revolves around the sun every day (with the sun appearing to rise)-- one could "induce" that this will happen forever into eternity.

Clearly, there is a point, though, where a catastrophic situation could disrupt the earth's revolution around the sun.

That is, just because the earth revolves around the sun based on our observations as far back as we have recorded data, this does not mean it will continue THROUGH ETERNITY.

But this does not mean induction is not important! When we switch to PROBABILITIES -- then induction DOES IMPROVE OUR ODDS that our hypothesis are correct. In the above example, it IS highly probable that the earth will revolve around the sun every day within our time frame.

That is why science uses induction-- because the probabilities are higher for getting the right answer than from ignoring it. When using induction on unproven hypothesis, science insists on the highest possible number of tests -- to refine or INCREASE the probabilities that a certain hypothesis is true.

However (and this is important): Science cannot claim 100% certainty through INDUCTION.

This has been disappointing for many -- enough to make them want to withdraw to more mystical solutions (not just religion -- Ayn Rand I think falls in this category)!

Now Bede--the next question is obvious: Should we apply Hume's skeptical approach to religious claims using induction -- in addition to scientific/other hypotheses using induction?

Sojourner

[ December 12, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

lpetrich

That has nothing to do with causality in the most general sense but with a specific form of causality.

Interestingly, Newtonian gravity can be interpreted as a field theory with an infinite propagation velocity; this gets around the action-at-a-distance problem very nicely.

And as to Hume and induction, Hume only showed that induction does not have the mathematical certainty of deduction.

Sojourner553

[quote]Originally posted by Bede:
I was typing this fast and furiously before going to bed. Here was what I thought I was summarizing. Guess I should learn to cut and paste when I am going at mach speed...

Now, I agree my keys slid over a few important words. But do you really think the pope sounds "that much" of a nicer guy here? That this just changes ALL THE OTHER FACTS OF THE CASE?

You mean like the horse's teeth example.

It's a grey area Bede. I have stated what is known about it, including a good probability it is a parody.

You have not proven 100% it is false.

Under those circumstances, I think it is fair to post what is known about it. I think you know that documentation during this period is atrocious. (I have seen you invoke the lack of good historical records at times ...)

This I am very interested in getting right. This was no clerical error on my part, from typing fast, etc -- I will recheck out my sources. Can you give me a little more information on your source...

[quote]

Finally, the 'how versus why' question was not a breakthrough of the Renaissance but rather a debate between the two major schools of New philosophy. As I hope you know, it was Descartes and his followers who insisted that you had to have a mechanical explanation for anything to be scientific.

I think your point is the "New Philosphy" predated the Renaissance -- can't tell for sure. Obviously, Descartes was a Renaissance man. Got any names of "who" you have in mind "if" what you mean is this predates the Renaissance.

Let me get this right. Do you think Newton was referring to the occult or Platonic magic and not Christian dogma????

I find this a fascinating topic. I need more details on who you are considering "the players in the age old debate"

Here it comes. By the way. Looks like I will be out of town so I can't respond until Sunday. If someone wants to jump in, go ahead. Just remember the rules please.

So I'll have to respond to everyone's responses then.

Take care, all!

Sojourner