|
|
Post by timoneill on May 23, 2011 4:16:31 GMT
The ranters at Butterflies and Wheels are continuing to fight a rearguard action in defence of the Conflict Thesis, led by their redoubtable general, the retired high school teacher Charlie Freeman. Apparently the idea that scientific inquiry was not suppressed by the Church in the Middle Ages is something James and I cooked up (someone better break that to Lindberg, Grant and Numbers). Freeman has also checked all James' footnotes and references and found his book is not supported by them. Oh, and the improbably named "Ophelia Benson" (that sounds like a minor character in a Steampunk novel) has drawn a comparison between James and David Irving. Freeman has seized on the fact that James recently featured on a Tea Party radio show and has now convinced himself that God's Philosophers can be dismissed as right-wing crankery. Told you that was a bad idea James. I'd comment, but "Ophelia Benson" banned me for my "attitude" a few months ago in a spectacular display of "free-thinking" wonderfulness. |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on May 23, 2011 12:41:07 GMT
See www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2011/trouble-rears-its/#commentsYes, it was a very selective reading CF has put out and he has rather distorted what his authorities are saying to prop up his revised conflict thesis. Some of it is quite interesting though – I have ‘Science of Describing by Brian Ogilvie (interesting CF hasn’t considered Albertus Magnus when he says ‘medievalists were incapable of serious study of the natural world’ even though he is mentioned as an important influence – he’s also ignoring Medieval herbalists and agricultural manuals, or the court of Frederick II where falconers and scholars compared Aristotle with their own practical experience). Ogilive makes the point that natural history involves hard tedious work for meagre rewards – hence it’s flourishing in the Renaissance was remarkable. Naturally the humanists claimed they were reviving ancient tradition after a barbarous hiatus but in many ways the discipline they engineered was a new invention which in contrast to the medievals & ancients who were more concerned with particulars and their description than for demonstrative knowledge of universals. Why did it start – it seems to have it’s origins in legal, biblical and classical philology and the explosion in European voyages to other continents. The main source for natural history in the Middle Ages was Pliny, who like Aristotle came to be criticised and revised. In the 1490s a series of polemics against Pliny appeared going through article by article to show the errors. However they don’t do this by observing the natural world – they do it by saying that Pliny did not read his sources correctly. At the same time the voyages to Asia, Africa and the Americas expanded the horizons of Europeans. Classical texts did not depict plants in a recognisable fashion, they were also written in the Mediterranean meaning that new herbals had to be written with drawings done from life. Again a lot of this won’t help CF’s anti-church thesis because you have Jesuits and Friars producing volume after volume of information from the new world – E.G Bernardino de Sahagún and Jose de Acosta (the Pliny of the New World). The interesting change was in how all this information was treated. In the Middle Ages (using Pliny as the model) flora and forna were viewed in a descriptive sense – but you would also get all types of folklaw and emblematic references. The humanists expanded this emblematic world view and produced much longer descriptions of animals and plants to include associations from ancient authorities and classical literature like Ovid – e.g the Peacock is proud – it is related to the goddess Juno and it’s ashamed of it’s feet (Pliny). This reflects the belief that the natural world is full of symbols for human contemplation. In the 17th century this disappears and a more literally descriptive view emerges focused purely on anatomy and features. Similarly in map making you move from a symbolic map to a projection on a grid. In religion you have the move to Protestant literalism over the more analogical, interpretative reading. Gaukroger argues that these changes in religion fostered a natural history grounded in an legitimised by the belief that such enquiries provided an understanding of God’s purposes in creation. It was also one in which like in Biblical hermeneutics you would have to bypass allegorical readings in favour of a clear literal meaning. |
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on May 23, 2011 13:01:52 GMT
Yes, it was a very selective reading CF has put out and he has rather distorted what his authorities are saying to prop up his revised conflict thesis. Not surprising, he seems to be willing to put a tremendous effort into maintaining the credibility of his books, including reading sources in a ... new way. Classical texts did not depict plants in a recognisable fashion, they were also written in the Mediterranean meaning that new herbals had to be written with drawings done from life. Hasn't this also a lot to do with the invention of the printing press as well? Prior, all drawings had to be redrawn and were distorted in a way copying letters weren't. With it, reproductions of drawings and diagrams became so much convenient that new kinds of natural studies could be undertaken, spread, discussed and improved. I think the printing press explains a lot of the change that happened in late 14- and early 1500's. Again a lot of this won’t help CF’s anti-church thesis because you have Jesuits and Friars producing volume after volume of information from the new world – E.G Bernardino de Sahagún and Jose de Acosta (the Pliny of the New World). Obviously closet atheists! Or at least heretics! |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on May 23, 2011 13:04:53 GMT
CF is also confused about what Lindberg is saying – he quotes him saying that:
‘The more extreme claims made on behalf of medieval science and its anticipation of early modern developments are not merely exaggerated,but false’
…and takes him as arguing against James’s book. However here Lindberg is clearly talking about Duhem’s continuity thesis and A.C Crombie – the extreme form of which is arguing that experimental methodology was a creation of the Middle Ages. By contrast recent studies argue that the medieval natural philosophers refined and departed from Aristotelian methodology but never relinquished the fundamentals. I don’t recall God’s Philosophers arguing the former thesis.
|
|
|
|
Post by bjorn on May 23, 2011 13:12:24 GMT
CF is also confused about what Lindberg is saying – he quotes him saying that: ‘The more extreme claims made on behalf of medieval science and its anticipation of early modern developments are not merely exaggerated,but false’
…and takes him as arguing against James’s book. However here Lindberg is clearly talking about Duhem’s continuity thesis and A.C Crombie – the extreme form of which is arguing that experimental methodology was a creation of the Middle Ages. By contrast recent studies argue that the medieval natural philosophers refined and departed from Aristotelian methodology but never relinquished the fundamentals. I don’t recall God’s Philosophers arguing the former thesis. I think Grant is really thinking of Jaki here, the best known modern supporter of Duhem. Even if Jaki at times is very good (he has done an impressive amount of studies, especially in his early works), he tends to turn everything into Catholic apologetics. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on May 23, 2011 14:30:33 GMT
I think Grant is really thinking of Jaki here, the best known modern supporter of Duhem. Even if Jaki at times is very good (he has done an impressive amount of studies, especially in his early works), he tends to turn everything into Catholic apologetics. Yes, I think you are right. After all, Grant has read GP and didn't complain that I'd overstated the continuity thesis. Best wishes James |
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on May 23, 2011 16:05:08 GMT
CF also writes:
'In 1559, pope Paul IV issued the first major Index of Prohibited Books. There were 904 items on it, some of them simply the name of an author all of whose books were banned. On March 18th of that year the energetic cardinal Michele Ghilsieri, later pope Pius V, claimed that he had burned between 10,000 and 12,000 books in Rome on that day alone. The Index was doubled in size in 1596. Of course, to maintain Hannam and O’Neill’s thesis, someone went through all the books before they were thrown on the flames, took out the ones that dealt with science (even though this was not defined as such in that period- but the Church always knows best) and preserved them'
However on further investigation the books that were burned appear to be copies of the Talmud and other works of Jewish doctrine. This is a tragic loss; however - unless they have changed their tune in recent months - I'm sure the readership of Butterflies and Wheels wouldn't regard the Jewish scriptures of scientific importance.
|
|
