|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 5, 2010 19:19:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 7, 2010 12:59:47 GMT
"Freeman then considers the place of logic in the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, he misunderstands how the subject was studied. He claims that the axioms were theological. "
That is a bizarre statement (i.e. that the axioms were theological). Who is Freeman?
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Nov 7, 2010 14:35:06 GMT
"Freeman then considers the place of logic in the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, he misunderstands how the subject was studied. He claims that the axioms were theological. " That is a bizarre statement (i.e. that the axioms were theological). Who is Freeman? Charles Freeman, an independent historian who believes that we are all dumber than paste because we aren't more like the ancient Greeks.
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 7, 2010 15:34:19 GMT
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 9, 2010 19:13:24 GMT
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 9, 2010 20:25:10 GMT
He hasn't replied to the comment I made on the other post, although he has published it. What is the problem here, James? I think some of what he says is sensible. Generally, it is very difficult to prove any kind of causal connection in the history of Ideas. Longeway claims (or rather, his reviewer claims) that 'Ockham was the founder of empiricism in the West'. How does anyone prove something like that.
His claim about the Italian universities is interesting (but I can't judge). Have you replied to that?
His point about the meaning of the word 'science' is also well-taken. It's clear that the philosopher-theologians of the middle ages where not doing anything like our 'science' (more like philosophy of science, I would argue).
Just some thoughts. As I imply in my comment to the other post, he is weak on the philosophy and logic side.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 9, 2010 21:55:43 GMT
Hi Peter,
Yes, I agree that Freeman is right about the slipperiness of the term science, but the point is clearly explained in God's Philosophers. And I agree with you about causation up to a point, which is why I try to be far more cautious than Freeman makes out. I think you need to read the book before deciding whether or not Freeman has any valid points. From his initial review I was not even sure he'd read it himself, so inaccurate was his analysis of it's contents.
We can have an interesting discussion on all these issues. But I am not sure it will be possible to discuss them with Freeman.
Best wishes
James
PS he is not in control of the comments so cannot be blamed for not replying. Try commenting on the new thread.
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 9, 2010 22:43:44 GMT
Hi Peter, I think you need to read the book before deciding whether or not Freeman has any valid points. It's on the Christmas list I have to get through Longeway first (tedious in parts). Meanwhile, is he roughly right in his summary of your book. Are all of these your claims? Are some of them not 'core'? Are there claims you make which you feel are 'core'?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 10, 2010 8:17:55 GMT
The core argument is that the middle ages provided four factors that provided a foundation for early modern natural philosophy, which grew into modern science (something I don't think existed before the 19th century).
The four factors were a metaphysical background whereby natural philosophy made sense as an intellectual activity, specific theories that found their way into the work of Copernicus and Galileo, technological advances like lenses and clocks, and an institutional home for philosophy at the universities.
A secondary argument is that the church did not, in general, hold back natural philosophy.
I try to avoid statements like Duhem's that the 1277 condemnations were the birth or science, or that impetus is the same as inertia, or that theological influence was all one way.
How well I have succeeded, you will have to judge. I'm afraid that it is likely that Freeman's review is motivated by personal factors such as my own review of his book The Closing of the Western Mind. If you look back over the history there is a fair amount of bad blood, which is partly my fault. A friend, who unlike me makes quite a lot of money from writing, explained that few authors will give a bad book review for this very reason.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by peterdamian on Nov 10, 2010 8:24:01 GMT
Off to Waterstone's, then.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 10, 2010 8:53:17 GMT
Off to Waterstone's, then. By the way, depending on where you live, you might have better luck at Blackwells where it is on 3 for 2. Best wishes James
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Nov 12, 2010 21:32:16 GMT
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 12, 2010 22:50:37 GMT
On Ophelia's blog I have already been compared to a holocaust denier. And Freeman is piling on the lies and misrepresentations. How dare he say I defend burning people.
To think I thought it would be possible to have a civilised disagreement with the guy.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Nov 12, 2010 22:54:47 GMT
And on what planet are Noel Malcolm, Patricia Fara, Edward Grant and Allan Chapman considered to ignorant stooges who can't recognise Catholic apologetics with no scholarly merit whatsoever...
|
|
|
Post by merkavah12 on Nov 13, 2010 0:23:37 GMT
Pardon me, boy Is that the Crazy-pants choo choo?
|
|