|
|
Post by timoneill on Jun 7, 2011 23:59:54 GMT
Has anyone watched this series of vids on YouTube? I only got a few minutes in and found I couldn't stand any more of Artie Ziff's nerdy nasal whiney voice. His voice just grates with me. If anyone can stand watching it or has seen it before, does he bother mentioning the "Gold of the Egyptians" argument, Clement of Alexandria's praise of Greek learning as a gift from God to be used, Augustine's defence of ancient wisdom or Boethius' preservation of ancient knowledge? Or is he simply peddling neo-Gibbonian propaganda by only focusing on the critics and neglecting to tell the ends of the story? Let me guess ... |
|
|
|
Post by doctormirabilis on Jun 10, 2011 2:42:06 GMT
Hi Tim!
I just watched it and it's absolute garbage! Carrier only mentions Clement and Origen in passing and says that they approved the knowledge of Greek science solely for the purpose of defending the Christian faith from the attacks of pagans.
Anyway, judging by some of the questions and comments put forth by the audience, I must say that the members of the Rationalist Society of St. Louis are anything but rational! ;D
Oh, Dr. Carrier also recommends the viewing of Agora.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 3, 2011 2:03:54 GMT
Has anyone watched this series of vids on YouTube? I only got a few minutes in and found I couldn't stand any more of Artie Ziff's nerdy nasal whiney voice. His voice just grates with me. Tim it would appear that Thony Christie, has at the very least, watched some of it and was not terribly impressed. Thony C. | June 13, 2011 at 8:56 am |
I’m sorry but what Carrier is selling is not history of science but warped propaganda for his own twisted prejudices.
And here is the closing paragraph of a critique of Carrier. The whole post by Thony contains a nice concise sweep of the History of Science. I could go on for pages about the errors in Carrier’s presentations but I will close with just one comment. In the opening to one of the videos embedded above he says, and I’m paraphrasing, that science in antiquity consisted of a mixture of good science and complete rubbish; this is of course true viewed from our standpoint. He then goes on to say that in the scientific revolution they kept the good bits and threw the rubbish out. I would suggest the he should go and read the works of some of the major figures of the scientific revolution, Kepler and Newton for example, which he has obviously never done and he will discover that they contain just as much complete rubbish, again viewed from our standpoint, as the works of the Greeks.
As you are obviously fairly ignorant of the history of European science otherwise you would not swallow the inaccurate generalisations and propaganda of Richard Carrier I would suggest that if you wish to educate yourself you start with Lindberg’s book. On the preservation of a literate culture in the monasteries in the Early Middle Ages I would recommend Stephan C. McCluskey’s Astronomies and Cultures in Early Medieval Europe. For a deeper look at the revival and advancement of scientific knowledge in the High Middle Ages I would recommend Edward Grant’s The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages. If and when you have finished those I shall be quite happy to provide further recommendations.
On a personal note, from experience I know that one or other atheist fanatic is likely to deny all that I have written and accuse me of being a Christian apologist. I will just point out that I was a radical atheist before Richard Carrier was born and will remain one until I die but unlike him I do not allow my personal views to prejudice and warp my historical research. Rebekah Higgitt chipped in to recommend some further reading. Rebekah Higgitt | June 17, 2011 at 9:41 pm |
Some further suggested reading for anyone who is interested in understanding the complexity of the relationship between science in the medieval and early modern world and the Catholic Church:
David C. Lindberg, “The Medieval Church Encounters the Classical Tradition: Saint Augustine, Roger Bacon, and the Handmaiden Metaphor”, in David C. Lindberg and Ronald L. Numbers, ed. When Science & Christianity Meet, (Chicago: University of Chicago Pr., 2003); Mordechai Feingold, Jesuit Science and the Republic of Letters (MIT Press, 2002); Edward Grant, The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (1996), and much, much more.
A more popular work, James Hannam’s God’s Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science (Icon, 2009), which won a prize from the Royal Society and has been fairly well received by academic historians of science. Try also the Wikipedia page on Medieval Science, and check out the references and bibliography. openparachute.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/early-history-of-science/#comments |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Jul 3, 2011 14:31:12 GMT
I heard the sound of that smack from all the way over here.
|
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 5, 2011 8:21:04 GMT
I heard the sound of that smack from all the way over here. That is not the end of it. Rebekkah Higgitts and Thony are engaged in debate here. openparachute.wordpress.com/2011/06/15/clarifying-some-myths-in-the-history-of-science/ThonyC. You have chosen a passage from Carrier’s writings and posted it on your blog claiming that this represents the views of the author. I have carefully read this passage and come to the conclusion that the following statement appears to be the central message that Carrier is trying to get across. …when Christianity came to power it did not restore those scientific values, but instead sealed the fate of science by putting an end to all significant scientific progress for almost a thousand years. It did not do this by oppressing, or persecuting science, but simply by not promoting its progress and by promoting instead a deep and enduring suspicion against the very values necessary to produce it.Now these are Carrier’s own words in no way changed or altered by me. This statement is fundamentally wrong and historically totally indefensible. The reasons for this I have spelt out in my other posts on this blog and I do not wish to bore you by repeating them now. Given this fact, and I can assure that it is a fact, I see absolutely no reason why I or anyone else should waste their time reading anymore of Carrier’s writings. Perhaps you would be so kind and enlighten me why one should read a historian who is so totally wrong in his principle statements? Ken:And what’s with your trust in the Catholic apologist Hannam’s critique of Carrier above actually reading Carrier himself? ThonyCKen your prejudices are showing! High profile public propagandist for atheism Carrier is a reliable historian whereas Catholic Hannam is unreliable. Does that mean that all Catholic historians of science are unreliable? Will I have to throw away all my books and articles by Owen Gingerich, Mario Biagioli, Ugo Baldini…? KenAnd if I do criticise them it will be on specific facts (as for example Hannam’s somewhat biased description of Galileo’s “Two World Systems.” ThonyCThere is absolutely nothing biased in Hannam’s description of the “Dialogo” in fact it is a wondefully succinct and very accurate summary of the book. Put even more succinctly the “Dialogo” is “brilliant polemic but lousy science”, a statement that I predict will send you to the barracades but none the less true. Now the “Discorsi” is a whole different picture, brilliant polemic and brilliant science, it really is a shame that everybody concentrates on the first and ignores the second. |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Jul 6, 2011 7:15:29 GMT
I heard the sound of that smack from all the way over here. My original comments regarding your post related to the fact that professional historians of science do not generally ignore the Ancient period, and that Carrier is absolutely not representative of those that do specifically work on it. I had in mind scholars like Serafina Cuomo (Birkbeck), Andrew Gregory (University College London) and Eleanor Robson (Cambridge), to pluck some names from the air. Where their work, and that of the best historians, differs from Carrier’s, as I understand it, is that they are not focused on proving an a priori thesis. Slap!  openparachute.wordpress.com/2011/06/13/early-history-of-science/#comments |
|
