|
Post by unkleE on Dec 28, 2010 22:16:49 GMT
I don't do authority figures as I'm more interested in what they write than how many letters they have after their name. G'day Dave. I know almost nothing about the historical topics being discussed here, but I think this statement, which may sound very independent minded to you, is very revealing. People with letters after their names generally don't get them without having earned them, and they generally don't get published in peer reviewed journals unless their work meets certain standards. They have access to texts that I don't, and they are familiar with them. They will generally (I'm guessing) be proficient in Latin and medieval English or other language(s). This means they don't only have information that I don't have, but they have the background to more correctly interpret that information. Thus, if I disregard their letters when they express an opinion on the colour I should paint my house, I am probably wise, but if I disregard them when discussing their areas of learning, I am really saying that I, on my own, know enough, have read enough, have sufficient background, to make a reasonable judgment. Even if I were the world's most learned man on medieval history, I wouldn't know enough in all the specialist areas to disregard my peers, but if I am any less than that, I certainly need the breadth of knowledge available to make valid judgments. There is a danger that saying "I don't do authority figures" (notice the use of "authority", which is irrelevant, instead of "expertise", which is highly relevant) may be a way to hold onto another view that wouldn't be tenable if one reads more widely. That may not be true here, because, as I said, I don't know the issues much at all, but that is what I as an innocent bystander would be suspicious of. Surely the correct approach is a balance, neither slavish acceptance of everything that is said, nor following one individual view, whether one's own or of a single scholar? I think it best to read from a range of views from among the mainstream of scholarly opinion, and thus get both the benefits of others' knowledge and retain a reasonable perspective. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Dec 31, 2010 18:02:39 GMT
O.K - looks like this thread got kicked off after all - let's go through one by one 1) That the Ancient Greeks were on the cusp of creating the scientific revolution before the crisis of the third century.
Yes the achievements of the Hellenistic Greeks were very impressive. However, some have alleged that they were about to kick off the scientific revolution, or in other words all the methodological and institutional foundations of the scientific revolution of the 17th century were present. Obviously people mean a number of things when they talk about the scientific revolution. Here would be some of my choices - the mathematisation of the world and the discovery of mathematical laws of nature, measurement and experiment (going beyond observation) and new models for viewing nature - the new astronomy and the mechanical philosophy. This is a complex debate but - briefly - we find many antecedents of these in Hellenistic thought but these are not sufficiently developed to be able to establish a strict continuity between classical thought and that of the 17th century - advances in Medieval Europe and Islam were critical. Secondly Greek science went into decline after it's golden age in 300BC - one key reason for this being that it was poorly socialised and institutionalised in the ancient world; it had no consistent institutional base as it did with the development of universities in Medieval Europe. You allege that Greek thought was suppressed by Christianity - this is a bit of an odd conclusion given that Christians expended so much effort on preserving Greek texts as civilization crashed around them. If they were suppressing them they did a terrible job. What the heck was Cassiodorus thinking? Considering that the few literate people around that time where mostly the clergy and most of their work would have be propaganda for the church. Also how much self-repression went on when they seen or read something that went against their doctrine. I also give you the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. I agree this is a myth. I admit I have come to this debate late and with limited knowledge but I was following the debate on the science blogs and there did seem to be a lot of theologians trying to whitewash the event. Whatever way somebody tries to paint the treatment of Galileo it was shameful and the Vatican have admitted as much by apologizing abet 300 years too late. As I stated earlier I haven't read the book, it's time to put those Xmas book tokens to good use. Then what was the point of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. As the church was the pathway to heaven and a way to avoid hell I think you under state it's influence. The whole point of Galileo's treatment was to suppress heretical (free) thinking. It's no wonder Northern Europe entered the intellectual and economic ascendancy when the went against Rome even though Southern Europe had a head start. Then how come even today we have people denying scientific facts if it disagrees with their doctrine. A lot of these people are intelligent too. If it happens today how bad was it in a less enlightened age.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Dec 31, 2010 18:30:11 GMT
I don't do authority figures as I'm more interested in what they write than how many letters they have after their name. G'day Dave. I know almost nothing about the historical topics being discussed here, but I think this statement, which may sound very independent minded to you, is very revealing. People with letters after their names generally don't get them without having earned them, and they generally don't get published in peer reviewed journals unless their work meets certain standards. They have access to texts that I don't, and they are familiar with them. They will generally (I'm guessing) be proficient in Latin and medieval English or other language(s). This means they don't only have information that I don't have, but they have the background to more correctly interpret that information. Thus, if I disregard their letters when they express an opinion on the colour I should paint my house, I am probably wise, but if I disregard them when discussing their areas of learning, I am really saying that I, on my own, know enough, have read enough, have sufficient background, to make a reasonable judgment. Even if I were the world's most learned man on medieval history, I wouldn't know enough in all the specialist areas to disregard my peers, but if I am any less than that, I certainly need the breadth of knowledge available to make valid judgments. There is a danger that saying "I don't do authority figures" (notice the use of "authority", which is irrelevant, instead of "expertise", which is highly relevant) may be a way to hold onto another view that wouldn't be tenable if one reads more widely. That may not be true here, because, as I said, I don't know the issues much at all, but that is what I as an innocent bystander would be suspicious of. Surely the correct approach is a balance, neither slavish acceptance of everything that is said, nor following one individual view, whether one's own or of a single scholar? I think it best to read from a range of views from among the mainstream of scholarly opinion, and thus get both the benefits of others' knowledge and retain a reasonable perspective. Best wishes. G'day unkieE (unusual name what's behind it.) I hope I didn't give you the impression that I was anti-intellectual or against education in anyway nothing could be further from the truth. After benefiting from a university education myself I try to encourage anybody I meet to go into further education. I agree with your post entirely. The reason I'm sceptical of letters after some peoples names (some brought, some earned and some just made up) is I have seen them used to add authority to many merchants of woo or kooks as humphreyclark likes to call them. This isn't exclusively religious I might add but does seem to be a tactic of the ID clowns. As a Doctor of Theology these people are probably more annoying to you than they would ever be to me. Though I find them very annoying. All the best.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Dec 31, 2010 22:49:51 GMT
The reason I'm sceptical of letters after some peoples names (some brought, some earned and some just made up) is I have seen them used to add authority to many merchants of woo or kooks as humphreyclark likes to call them. This isn't exclusively religious I might add but does seem to be a tactic of the ID clowns. As a Doctor of Theology these people are probably more annoying to you than they would ever be to me. Though I find them very annoying. All the best. Dave, it is not to difficult to check the credentials of historians like Ronald Numbers en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Numbers , Ronald Number's 32 page CV is here in PDF format histsci.wisc.edu/people/faculty/data/Numbers%20CV.pdfDavid C. Lindberg histsci.wisc.edu/people/faculty/lindberg.shtmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_C._Lindberg or Edward Grant www.indiana.edu/~alldrp/members/grant.html to name a few. If the institution that they work for does not have a CV on their web page you can find information about them on Wikipedia or the like. For an example: "Professor Grant has received numerous honors and awards. He was a Guggenheim Fellow (1965-66) and was twice a Visiting Member of the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, New Jersey (1965-66; 1983-84). He is a member of the International Academy of the History of Science (Paris, 1969) and has been elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (1984) and Fellow of the Medieval Academy of America (1982). He was President of the History of Science Society (1985-86) and was awarded the George Sarton Medal in 1992, the most prestigious award given by the History of Science Society that "recognizes those whose entire careers have been devoted to the field and whose scholarship is exceptional." From 1990 to 2000, Professor Grant was a lecturer for the Phi Beta Kappa Associates Panel of Distinguished Speakers" www.indiana.edu/~alldrp/members/grant.htmlAll three of the above historians are Sarton medalists. I think that you can be fairly confident that these scholars are not kooks or religious apologists. I have seen criticisms of Ronald Numbers by both extremes of the ideological divide, but given that Numbers has publicly stated the he is agnostic, I doubt that he has much of an axe to grind.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 1, 2011 1:25:02 GMT
G'day unkieE (unusual name what's behind it.) Nothing much. My name is Eric, and when I was working (I'm now retired) I used to sign my emails as Uncle E just to be a bit less formal, and also because I was mostly working with people much younger than me. Uncle E morphed to unkleE just for fun, and became my main online persona. Then maybe it would be better to seek the consensus of the best scholars rather than say you mistrust them all? Might save some misunderstanding. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 1, 2011 14:03:02 GMT
Also how much self-repression went on when they seen or read something that went against their doctrine. Sure, well many of Aristotle's doctrines were in conflict with Christian teaching (e.g the eternity of the universe). The self repressed Medieval Christians resolved this clash of world views by recovering and translating his works and then making his logic and analytical categories the exclusive conceptual means of investigating any subject. The elaboration and defense of Aristotle then became a mission of the universities. Then how come even today we have people denying scientific facts if it disagrees with their doctrine. A lot of these people are intelligent too. If it happens today how bad was it in a less enlightened age. For a number of reasons - many of which have more to do with developments in the 20th century than what preceded. For example - In David Livingstone's book ' Darwin's Forgotten defenders' he showed that evangelical theologians in the United States defended Darwin and took a accomodationist position. Later in the twentieth century the same groups turned against the Theory of Evolution. The reason for this was the rise of fundamentalism which is a product of modernity
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 6, 2011 5:09:42 GMT
Sure, well many of Aristotle's doctrines were in conflict with Christian teaching (e.g the eternity of the universe). The self repressed Medieval Christians resolved this clash of world views by recovering and translating his works and then making his logic and analytical categories the exclusive conceptual means of investigating any subject. The elaboration and defense of Aristotle then became a mission of the universities. Citation needed, I'm not doubting you I just wish to check it out. Then how come even today we have people denying scientific facts if it disagrees with their doctrine. A lot of these people are intelligent too. If it happens today how bad was it in a less enlightened age. Citation needed. Though I found this bit interesting 'Later in the twentieth century the same groups turned against the Theory of Evolution. The reason for this was the rise of fundamentalism which is a product of modernity' can you please elaborate on it.
|
|
|
Post by davedodo007 on Jan 6, 2011 5:17:01 GMT
G'day unkieE (unusual name what's behind it.) Nothing much. My name is Eric, and when I was working (I'm now retired) I used to sign my emails as Uncle E just to be a bit less formal, and also because I was mostly working with people much younger than me. Uncle E morphed to unkleE just for fun, and became my main online persona. Then maybe it would be better to seek the consensus of the best scholars rather than say you mistrust them all? Might save some misunderstanding. Just a thought. I never said I mistrust them I'm just a bit skeptical that's all. With the best will in the world the authors bias can still surface not always obvious to the writer.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jan 6, 2011 6:29:25 GMT
I never said I mistrust them I'm just a bit skeptical that's all. With the best will in the world the authors bias can still surface not always obvious to the writer. I agree. But we must also be sceptical of ourselves. We have biases and mixed motives too! The only safe way, surely, when dealing with matters of fact and interpretation, is to look at a number of viewpoints and a number of scholars and find the consensus. Then if we choose to depart from that consensus, we at least are doing it with our eyes open.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jan 6, 2011 12:43:12 GMT
Citation needed, I'm not doubting you I just wish to check it out On Medieval thought in general and the incorporation of Aristotle you might want to check out Edward Grant's 'God and Reason in the Middle Ages'. This one is on google books so you can read certain passages. David Lindberg's indispensable 'The Beginnings of Western Science' is also there and if you can you'll need to check out chapters 9 and 10 in particular. On creationism the best work is still Ron Numbers's 'The Creationists' - again on google books. If you go to the Faraday Institute's multimedia page and do a search for Ron Numbers you'll find he has a lecture on creationism in the USA which gives some of the historical background. www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Multimedia.phpOn fundamentalism a decent enough place to start is the wikipedia page which gives the basics en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalist_Christianity but Numbers covers it in his book. Most important is 'The Fundamentals: a testimony to the truth' (1910-1915) - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Feb 15, 2011 7:14:41 GMT
Myth: That throughout history the periods of secular thought saw great advances in Science and Technology, while on the other hand, the periods when religion was in ascendancy saw stagnation in Science and Technology. scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/08/julian_would_not_appreciate_th.php Thony Christie of Renaissance Mathematicus would appear to disagree. "Paul Myers is probably a good biologist and I suspect he is a good biology teacher but he is a lousy historian who appears to think that wishing the world to be as he wants it to be is more important than the facts. In a post on his blog Pharyngula he makes the following set of claims": The history of Western Civilization hasn’t been one of constant decline. It’s been a complicated series of ups and downs, and people seem to differ on when it was going up and when it was going down. I see the major lifts occurring during periods of secular thought: Greece in the 6th century BC, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment and Industrial Revolution. These are the moments when great changes occurred that expanded humanity’s vision. On the other hand, the great troughs in human history were whenever religion was ascendant: the whole of the Middle Ages. Not that people weren’t aspiring to great things during the Middle Ages, but they were all weighted down with the burden of dragging an anti-scientific, reactionary church with them everywhere.thonyc.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/squid-history/
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Nov 23, 2015 6:27:50 GMT
I was wondering about the possibility of another volume of Galileo Goes to Jail. Surely the present volume has not exhausted all the myths about Science and Religion. As the book outlined 25 myths about Science and Religion, I am interested to see if we could come up with another 25 myths. The book is not a work of religious or Christian Apologetics, therefore the collection of myths should not exclude those myths that are often promoted by religious people.
And behold! From Harvard University Press.
|
|