@Macrobius

[Fade the Butcher]

Edward Grant has a new book coming out next month, A History of Natural Philosophy: From the Ancient World to the Nineteenth Century. I suspect you will be interested in this. I'm about to preorder my own copy. :)

http://www.amazon.com/History-Natural-Philosophy-Ancient-Nineteenth/dp/0521689570/sr=1-3/qid=1165218634/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/103-8999530-7207033?ie=UTF8&s=books

Review

"This excellent book is the distillation of a long and distinguished career in the history of science. Grant rightly acknowledges the key position held by Aristotle in the history of what was traditionally labeled 'natural philosophy.' He extends his study backwards in time to preliterate inquiries into discourse about nature, as well as forwards to early modern and modern periods. In the beginning and end sections, of course, Aristotle is no longer the arbiter of what natural philosophy should be all about, but Grant shows that even for an understanding of modern science, the Aristotelian tradition cannot be ignored. No less relevant are his accounts of styles of argument in early medicine and of the medieval university tradition. Grant's quotations from original texts bring his associated discussion to life. His material ranges over a wide area, and his breadth of vision, combined with his simple style, will make this an invaluable course-book for university use."

- John North, Professor Emeritus of the University of Groningen, The Netherlands

"A product of immense learning, A History of Natural Philosophy, is a rich harvest of knowledge about the development of this important discipline. Arguing that the union of mathematics and natural philosophy made the Scientific Revolution possible, Grant clearly links radical early modern developments, with medieval, Aristotelian natural philosophy. He goes on to show how the modern sciences eventually broke away from the 'Great Mother' of natural philosophy. This book is essential reading for understanding the development of the disciplines of modern science and philosophy."
- Margaret J. Osler, Professor of History, University of Calgary

Book Description

Natural philosophy encompassed all natural phenomena of the physical world. It sought to discover the physical causes of all natural effects and was little concerned with mathematics. By contrast, the exact mathematical sciences were narrowly confined to various computations that did not involve physical causes, functioning totally independently of natural philosophy. Although this began slowly to change in the late Middle Ages, a much more thoroughgoing union of natural philosophy and mathematics occurred in the seventeenth century and thereby made the Scientific Revolution possible. The title of Isaac Newton's great work, The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, perfectly reflects the new relationship. Natural philosophy became the 'Great Mother of the Sciences', which by the nineteenth century had nourished the manifold chemical, physical, and biological sciences to maturity, thus enabling them to leave the 'Great Mother' and emerge as the multiplicity of independent sciences we know today.

[Donny the Punk]

Looks like an undergraduate textbook. Are all your books as introductory?

[Petr]

Looks like an undergraduate textbook. Are all your books as introductory?
It would seem so - this is the book he draws his ideas about late antiquity from:


"Charles Freeman is a freelance writer of popular history. ... Freeman’s next book was the now notorious The Closing of the Western Mind (2002). It went down like a lead balloon among people who know something about late antiquity, but was rather popular with those who don’t. "

http://www.bede.org.uk/closing.htm

Nothing too demanding for Fade.


Petr

[Ambrosio Spinola]

Looks like an undergraduate textbook. Are all your books as introductory?

Potyondi, I´m happy to have you back here but please try to be a bit more constructive when firing off your cheap shots on Fade. Maybe the subject would interest you more than the poster.

[Fade the Butcher]

Looks like an undergraduate textbook. Are all your books as introductory?

Edward Grant is one of the leading historians of medieval science. Perhaps your commentary would be more informative if you knew something about the subject.

[Donny the Punk]

Edward Grant is one of the leading historians of medieval science. Perhaps your commentary would be more informative if you knew something about the subject.
His reputation has no bearing on the sophistication of the books he is allowed to produce. Genuine academics (and I suppose this applies to self-proclaimed graduate students as well) look to journals, not pop history books 'invaluable . . . for university use' as authoritative sources.

In any event, to comply with Bill's request, I find it interesting that some quick google and amazon searches reveal that Grant believes quite firmly in the positive role of Christianity in the development of mediaeval and then modern science. From the first line of an editorial review of another book: 'Historian Edward Grant illuminates how today's scientific culture originated with the religious thinkers of the Middle Ages.' Will you be so quick to jump to the defence of his credentials when quotes to that effect start popping up in threads? I wonder. Well, not really.

[Fade the Butcher]

His reputation has no bearing on the sophistication of the books he is allowed to produce.

What is "unsophisticated" about the book Grant is releasing in January? Have you read any of his other books? They are packed with information about the subject.

Genuine academics (and I suppose this applies to self-proclaimed graduate students as well) look to journals, not pop history books 'invaluable . . . for university use' as authoritative sources.

Grant is a genuine academic and is one of the leading scholars in the field of medieval science. That's a fact. His book is available for sale on Amazon, but that doesn't imply it is a "pop history" book. How many people even know what the hell natural philosophy is? Grant is far more qualified to write about the subject in question than William Shirer whom you used to always boast about.

In any event, to comply with Bill's request, I find it interesting that some quick google and amazon searches reveal that Grant believes quite firmly in the positive role of Christianity in the development of mediaeval and then modern science. From the first line of an editorial review of another book: 'Historian Edward Grant illuminates how today's scientific culture originated with the religious thinkers of the Middle Ages.' Will you be so quick to jump to the defence of his credentials when quotes to that effect start popping up in threads? I wonder. Well, not really.

These would be Grosseteste, Bacon, Bradwardine, Oresme, Ockham, Scotus, Abelard, Buridan, and Albertus Magnus . . . all of whom lived in the High and Late Middle Ages. Please remind me where I have ever denied their contributions to science. I recall denying the ridiculous claim made by Petr that they "invented" natural philosophy.

[Petr]

I recall denying the ridiculous claim made by Petr that they "invented" natural philosophy.
Vintage Fade - definition-games, putting words to my mouth... (I don't recall using words "natural philosophy")


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Vintage Fade - definition-games, putting words to my mouth... (I don't recall using words "natural philosophy")


Petr

You claimed in the other thread that natural philosophy was created by the Scholastics and that science required a Biblical foundation. That's hilarious, really.

[Petr]

You claimed in the other thread that natural philosophy was created by the Scholastics and that science required a Biblical foundation. That's hilarious, really.
Did I use the words "natural philosophy"? With a shyster like you, the devil is always in the details.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Did I use the words "natural philosophy"? With a shyster like you, the devil is always in the details.


Petr

"The Greeks themselves did not yet have a real "scientific tradition." Real science was invented scholastics, and Fade knows this."
—Petr

[Petr]

"The Greeks themselves did not yet have a real "scientific tradition." Real science was invented scholastics, and Fade knows this."
—Petr
So I did not make "the ridiculous claim that scholastics "invented" natural philosophy." Fade just put words to my mouth to have a strawman to poke at.

(The way I see it, not only Greeks but Indians and Chinese etc. had a kind of "natural philosophy." Buddhists sought to prove that we are mere thoughts without a thinker, a rather modernist notion as well.)

I stand by my statement. Scholastics improved the Greek heritage radically in the same way as the Greeks themselves had improved the Middle Eastern heritage. As you said:

http://thephora.net/forum/showthread.php?t=2911&highlight=gratian

"St. Francis praised nature as a second revelation from God and the Franciscan Order were trailblazers in the path to modern science. The study of Greek natural philosophy was enthusiastically embraced in West. Nothing comparable ever happened in the Islamic world. The great natural philosophers and scientists of medieval Europe like Albertus Magnus, Roger Bacon, and Thomas Bradwardine were almost always clerics. In fact, the caps and gowns that modern university graduates wear ever today are clerical garb that can be traced back to medieval practice. This wasn't the case in the Islamic world where there was always enormous tension between imans and the 'impious philosophers' like Averroes (who, in any case, was treated as an outsider in the Muslim world)."


Petr

[Macrobius]

Hi Fade!

Thread noted.

[Fade the Butcher]

So I did not make "the ridiculous claim that scholastics "invented" natural philosophy." Fade just put words to my mouth to have a strawman to poke at.

You claimed the Scholastics invented "real science." Presumably, this would be "natural philosophy," as modern science did not exist in the Middle Ages. In any case, this claim is false. Natural philosophy originated was the Greeks and was revived in Europe during the High Middle Ages after the Greek scientific tradition was recovered.

"Third, we need to agree on what is meant when we talk about medieval "science." There was nothing in the medieval period corresponding even approximately to modern science. What we do find in the Middle Ages are the roots, the sources, of modern scientific disciplines and practices -- ancestors of many of the pieces of modern science, which bear a family resemblance to their offspring without being identical to them. In short, medieval scholars had ideas about nature, methods for exploring it, and languages for describing it. Many of these ideas, methods, and languages were drawn from the classical tradition, the corpus of philosophical thought that originated in ancient Greece and was transmitted by various complicated processes to medieval Europe, where it became the object of intense scholarly discussion and dispute. Within the classical tradition, thought about nature was not sharply separated from thought about other subjects; all belonged to the general enterprise known as "philosophy," within which there was considerable methodological unity and interlocking content. If one wished to refer specifically to the aspects of philosophy contained with nature, the expression natural philosophy was readily available."

David C. Lindberg, Medieval Science and Religion in Gary B. Ferngren, Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimore and London: The John Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp.58-59

(The way I see it, not only Greeks but Indians and Chinese etc. had a kind of "natural philosophy." Buddhists sought to prove that we are mere thoughts without a thinker, a rather modernist notion as well.)

The Chinese and Indians had something resembling "science" or "natural philosophy," but it shouldn't be compared to the Greek inheritance for a thousand reasons.

I stand by my statement. Scholastics improved the Greek heritage radically in the same way as the Greeks themselves had improved the Middle Eastern heritage. As you said:

I said that natural philosophy was embraced and institutionalized in the West whereas it was ultimately rejected in the Islamic world. That is not to say that Scholastics invented science, or that they even broke radically with the classical tradition. They improved upon the classical inheritance, but they did not radically break with it. In astronomy, Ptolemy's geocentric model of the solar system remained the status quo until Copernicus. In physics, Aristotle was criticized, but his views were not rejected until Galileo and Newton. In medicine, Galen and Avicenna remained the status quo until Paracelsus. In mathematics, Euclid, Archimedes, and Diophantus remained the status quo until Descartes, Fermat, Pascal, and Newton. In earth science, Eratosthenes remained the status quo until Agricola. In chemistry, Democritus remained the status quo until Boyle. In biology, Galen remained the status quo until Vesalius.

[Fade the Butcher]

Hi Fade!

Thread noted.

I have some new information about Newton's interest in alchemy. In hindsight, you might have a valid point about this. His interest in alchemy was not a peripheral to his accomplishments as I thought.

[Petr]

You claimed the Scholastics invented "real science." Presumably, this would be "natural philosophy," as modern science did not exist in the Middle Ages.
I claim that the decisive developmental break from natural philosophy to science happened in the Late Middle Ages, not in the 17th century. You are trying to draw all attention on the latter period in order to push atomism.


"However, the dogmas of Christian theology allowed a certain intellectual community to strip the classics of antiquity of the disastrous influence of these anti-scientific concepts due to their conflict with their religious ideas, allowing a true modern science to eventually blossom. Of course, if Catholic Christians had not believed in concepts opposed to these pagan ones due to their theology, such a conflict would not have occurred and science would not have reached a modern, self-sustaining form in the West. Duhem, in his Le Systeme Du Monde, maintained that modern science was made possible by the Bishop of Paris Tempier's condemnation in 1277 of 219 propositions, which blasted these anti-scientific concepts of antiquity."

http://www.rae.org/jaki.html


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

I claim that the decisive developmental break from natural philosophy to science happened in the Late Middle Ages, not in the 17th century. You are trying to draw all attention on the latter period in order to push atomism.

In case anyone is wondering, the status quo holds that the break occurred between Copernicus' publication of De revolutionibus in 1543 and Newton's publication of Principia in 1687, or during what is commonly known as the "Scientific Revolution." The decisive developmental break . . . with what? Aristotelian Scholasticism. Aristotle's cosmology was challenged and rejected by Copernicus who revived the heliocentric theory of Aristarchus. Galileo further challenged Aristotle by discovering the moons of Jupiter, rings of Saturn, and the jagged surface of the moon.

During the Late Middle Ages, Aristotle's physics was criticized by John Buridan who formulated the theory of impetus, but his views on the subject were not rejected until after Galileo. Galileo later flirted with impetus physics but rejected it. As I pointed out in the other thread, Oresme and Buridan speculated in the Late Middle Ages that the earth rotates on its axis, but decided against pursuing the matter further because of its conflict with the "authority" of the Bible (a good example of how Christianity "inspires" science). Geocentrism remained the status quo until the Early Modern Era. Finally, modern chemistry and modern mechanics as formulated by Boyle and Newton took the mechanistic philosophy as their starting point.

As for Duhem and the Condemnation of 1277 (funny you would cite this), I will make an exception to the rule here.

"A great deal of ink has been spilled over the significance of the condemnations of 1270 and 1277. Pierre Duhem, who regarded them as the "birth certificate" of modern science, argued that Tempier's attack on entrenched Aristotelianism provided scholars with the freedom and incentive to explore non-Aristotelian alternatives and that this theologically sanctioned exploration led ultimately to the emergence of modern science. Most historians of science would now judge Duhem's position to be overblown. A more modest assessment of the condemnation might look like this: In the first place, the condemnations were clearly the product of a conservative backlash against liberal attempts to extend the application of philosophy into the theological realm. They reveal the strength of the opposition and must surely be judged a victory -- not for modern science but for theological conservatives at the University of Paris. Their purposes and their effect were to impose limits on philosophical freedom. That they achieved their intended effect is nicely illustrated by the extreme caution exercised by the Parisian master of arts Jean Buridan (c.1295-1358), writing at the University of Paris about the middle of the fourteenth century. Having strayed into theological territory by arguing against the existence of angelic movers of celestial spheres, Buridan adds that he makes these assertions tentatively, seeking "from the theological masters what they might teach me in these matters as to how these things take place" (Clagett 1959, 536)."

Ibid., p.69

[Petr]

As for Duhem and the Condemnation of 1277 (funny you would cite this), I will make an exception to the rule here.

"A great deal of ink has been spilled over the significance of the condemnations of 1270 and 1277. Pierre Duhem, who regarded them as the "birth certificate" of modern science, argued that Tempier's attack on entrenched Aristotelianism provided scholars with the freedom and incentive to explore non-Aristotelian alternatives and that this theologically sanctioned exploration led ultimately to the emergence of modern science. Most historians of science would now judge Duhem's position to be overblown. A more modest assessment of the condemnation might look like this: In the first place, the condemnations were clearly the product of a conservative backlash against liberal attempts to extend the application of philosophy into the theological realm. They reveal the strength of the opposition and must surely be judged a victory -- not for modern science but for theological conservatives at the University of Paris. Their purposes and their effect were to impose limits on philosophical freedom. That they achieved their intended effect is nicely illustrated by the extreme caution exercised by the Parisian master of arts Jean Buridan (c.1295-1358), writing at the University of Paris about the middle of the fourteenth century. Having strayed into theological territory by arguing against the existence of angelic movers of celestial spheres, Buridan adds that he makes these assertions tentatively, seeking "from the theological masters what they might teach me in these matters as to how these things take place" (Clagett 1959, 536)."

Ibid., p.69
This is a huge paradox but true one: modern science was made possible because Christian theologians had guts to defy the secular scholarship, and thus purify them from retarding pagan influences like the eternity of the world.

To use another metaphor, secular scholars were spanked, but it was for their own good in the long run, building up their character properly.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

This is a huge paradox but true one: modern science was made possible because Christian theologians had guts to defy the secular scholarship, and thus purify them from retarding pagan influences like the eternity of the world. To use another metaphor, secular scholars were spanked, but it was for their own good in the long run, building up their character properly.

As Lindberg points out, the Condemnation of 1277 had a chilling effect upon natural philosophy and if anything retarded scientific progress. Buridan and Oresme were intimidated by such invocations of "authority" and refrained from openly challenging the status quo.

[Petr]

As Lindberg points out, the Condemnation of 1277 had a chilling effect upon natural philosophy and if anything retarded scientific progress.
This chastisement was for the own good of science in the long run. Pampered modern science-supremacists, like spoiled children, cannot stand that anyone says "no" them. Like Feyerabend puts it, they need to be cut down in size.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

This chastisement was for the own good of science in the long run. Pampered modern science-supremacists, like spoiled children, cannot stand that anyone says "no" them. Like Feyerabend puts it, they need to be cut down in size.

No, it wasn't. Few things are more alien to science than faith based invocations of authority. That's how theology proceeds, not science.

Purifying ordeal. Sometimes scientists should simply shut up and listen.

Did you hear that?

[Petr]

No, it wasn't. Few things are more alien to science than faith based invocations of authority. That's how theology proceeds, not science.
The whole concept of autonomous science is an illusion, a pious secularist fraud.

There is no clear demarcation line between theology and science, scientism is just another religion among others.


"But the scientific community has become steadily more anxious about conflicts of interest - and rightly so.

Scientists used to like to think that they were above conflicts of interest. What mattered was the quality of the science, not any conflicts. They enjoyed a fantasy that science was an objective discipline based on evidence and data and so immune to human failings. This is, of course, nonsense. Science is a human activity and so prone to abuse, fraud, bias, misjudgements, incompetence, greed, and the full rainbow of human frailty."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_smith/2006/12/scientists_are_only_human.html


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

The whole concept of autonomous science is an illusion, a pious secularist fraud. There is no clear demarcation line between theology and science, scientism is just another religion among others.

This is false. There is a clear dividing line: methodological naturalism. The scope of science is limited to the material world.

[Petr]

Btw, Feyerabend's idea of chastising Big Science was the separation of science and state. Let the scientific wheat be separated from chaff with sink-or-swim method.


It may be time to curtail public financing of scientific research

"It may be inviting poison e-mails to say it, but I venture to suggest that contemporary science is now so corrupted by the lust for loot and glory that nothing less than root-and-branch reform can save it. For a start, although I distance myself wholly from his anti-rationalism and methodological anarchy, I share the late philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend's demand for a separation of science and state, or at the very least a radical curtailment of public financial sponsorship of scientific research. How could the millions thrown at scientists be anything other than a veritable inducement to misconduct? When you combine it with the innumerable honors and awards that await the next would-be secular savior of humanity, one wonders that fraud is not even more common than it appears to be. "

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2006/01/15/INGMDGMDSV1.DTL


Petr

[Petr]

This is false. There is a clear dividing line: methodological naturalism. The scope of science is limited to the material world.
Methodological Naturalism?

Alvin Plantinga
Department of Philosophy
Decio Hall
University of Notre Dame

...

One root of this way of thinking about science is a consequence of the modern foundationalism stemming from Descartes and perhaps even more importantly, Locke. Modern classical foundationalism has come in for a lot of criticism lately, and I do not propose to add my voice to the howling mob.36 And since the classical foundationalism upon which methodological naturalism is based has run aground, I shall instead consider some more local, less grand and cosmic reasons for accepting methodological naturalism.

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od181/methnat181.htm


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

Methodological Naturalism?

Plantinga and other apologists for religion have criticized methodological naturalism, but they are clearly in the minority. Methodological naturalism remains the status quo in the practice of science.

Btw, Feyerabend's idea of chastising Big Science was the separation of science and state. Let the scientific wheat be separated from chaff with sink-or-swim method.

I'm not seeing your point. Feyerabend seems to be arguing for non-interference in science. This is exactly the opposite of what happened in the Condemnation of 1277.

[Petr]

I'm not seeing your point. Feyerabend seems to be arguing for non-interference in science. This is exactly the opposite of what happened in the Condemnation of 1277.
The point is that scientists don't need mere yes-men to búild their discipline. Sometimes even seemingly anti-science attitudes can be a source of fruitful dialectical tension.

By metaphor, if you make things harder for scientists, "natural selection" will weed out the unworthy ones. Evolutionist should appreciate the approach.

Call it an initiatory trial, a peer review by public. If the scientists are any good, they can bear a little pressure.


Petr

[Fade the Butcher]

The point is that scientists don't need mere yes-men to búild their discipline.

Science relies upon freedom of inquiry to progress.

Sometimes even seemingly anti-science attitudes can be a source of fruitful dialectical tension.

You cited the Condemnation of 1277 above as an example of how Christianity is responsible for the rise of modern science. As Lindberg points out, few historians of science buy into that.

By metaphor, if you make things harder for scientists, "natural selection" will weed out the unworthy ones. Evolutionist should appreciate the approach.

. . . or intimidation will simply retard science and perpetuate ignorance.

Call it an initiatory trial, a peer review by public. If the scientists are any good, they can bear a little pressure.

The last thing science needs is the ignorant American public dictating what is and is not science.

[Petr]

You cited the Condemnation of 1277 above as an example of how Christianity is responsible for the rise of modern science.
It was important. Animistic pagan notions had to be decisively repelled, and not just Aristotelian ones. Only clear-cut monotheistic background could have brought modern science to being, like Whitehead and so many others have argued.

As Lindberg points out, few historians of science buy into that.
Lindberg himself would sort of seem to agree with my ideas of "fruitful dialectical tension"...

"There was no warfare between science and the church. The story of science and Christianity in the Middle Ages is not a story of suppression nor one of its polar opposite, support and encouragement. What we find is an interaction exhibiting all of the variety and complexity with which we are familiar in other realms of human endeavor: conflict, compromise, understanding, misunderstanding, accomodation, dialogue, alienation, the making of common cause, and the going of separate ways. Out of this complex interaction (rather than by repudiation of it) emerged the science of the Renaissance and the early modern period."

David C. Lindberg, "Medieval Science and Religion," in Gary B. Ferngren (ed.) Science and Religion: A Historical Introduction (Baltimoere and London: John Hopkins University Press, 2002), pp.70-71


So it was good that the church was not blindly, one-sidedly "pro-science".


Petr

[Petr]

. . . or intimidation will simply retard science and perpetuate ignorance.
Where is your faith in natural selection?

The last thing science needs is the ignorant American public dictating what is and is not science.
Scientists are not too proud to accept the money of American taxpayers.


Petr

[Helios Panoptes]

Where is your faith in natural selection?

I don't follow. Can you elaborate?

[Fade the Butcher]

Where is your faith in natural selection?

I don't have "faith" in natural selection. I don't assume its existence as an axiom, as you do with the Christian god.

Scientists are not too proud to accept the money of American taxpayers.

I see nothing wrong with that. I would rather see that money be put to good use in scientific research than pissed down the drain on charlatans like Ted Haggard and Kent Hovind.

[Fade the Butcher]

It was important.

. . . in retarding science in the Late Middle Ages.

Animistic pagan notions had to be decisively repelled, and not just Aristotelian ones. Only clear-cut monotheistic background could have brought modern science to being, like Whitehead and so many others have argued.

This is nonsense.

Lindberg himself would sort of seem to agree with my ideas of "fruitful dialectical tension"...

Lindberg isn't saying that all. Obviously, the science of the Early Modern Era would never have existed if the Church had been an implacable enemy of science.

So it was good that the church was not blindly, one-sidedly "pro-science".

No, this is your own conclusion.