A Brief History of Science: Antiquity to the Late Middle Ages (Part 2-1)

The first part in my brief history of science series, in preparation for my series on the philosophy of science in the 20th century. This part covers the Ancient Greek world, up through the Scholasticism of the late 12th century.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• History
• of
• science
• philosophy
• pre-Socratics

[ThatGuyWithHippyHair]

SR, I've read from some Christian apologists claims about the "myth" of the "Dark" Ages; that is, people such as the author of "The Catholic Church and Science" contend that the Middle Ages were not, in fact, scientifically fallow. Or, at least, Christians of the Middle Ages were not hostile to scientific progress.

Granted, I've learned to take the claims of apologists with a grain of salt, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on this matter.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@ThatGuyWithHippyHair It's a mixed bag. We're talking about 1,000 years, and millions of square miles, millions of different people in dozens of different cultures. The apologists are right about some people in some places some of the time. What's relevant here is the contrast to the Renascence and the Enlightenment. It's not black and white, but it is... well, darker and lighter.

[hitballfootler]

What does philosophy have to say about justifying logic itself? Do the laws of logic just have to be assumed?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@hitballfootler In short, yeah. Logics (there are more than one) are axiomatic systems. Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead tried to ground math in logic. Kurt Godel proved that that can't be done: some facts about any arithmetic system are unprovable. This in turn applies to any logical system that entails arithmetic, which includes pretty much all the major systems we've been using for the last 2,500 years or so.

[Kedonata]

What school do you teach at?

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@Kedonata I don't really want to announce that on my channel. I want to keep a bit of anonymity. 

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@unapologeticmind ...actively inhibited science. The ancient teachings were 'lost' to the West, but not the Islamic world. Why? Because Muslims embraced the Greeks, while Christians suppressed them. There were exceptions, of course (when talking about 4 million square miles over more than 1,000 years, there's going to be variation), but as a rule, the Church was hostile to anything that threatened their power, and that included Greek and Roman culture.

[SisyphusRedeemed]

@unapologeticmind 'Candle' is an apt metaphor: it simultaneously cast illumination and set things ablaze. Yes, certain individuals and institutions within the church at certain times and certain places did act as preservatives of literacy and knowledge. But the idea that the church as such was a force for enlightenment is simply false. The church was the dominant social institution, frequently more powerful than the Aristocracies of Europe. They suppressed literacy amongst the peasantry and...

[ThePeaceableKingdom]

Pythagoras was also the first to use the term "The Cosmos" because it was "adorned with beauty" - same root as our word "cosmetics"...

[Erufailon42]

If science really continued after the classical era of Greece, then how come you mention no natural philosophers after the Hellenistic era except for Galen? We're talking 7-800 years here, with only one "scientist" present.

[AidisStukas]

Nice intro.

You lack of little scepticism about limits of your knowledge and of limits of knowledge of culture you have inherited. Your references to the "ancient" have no doubt, and it looks like you appreciate current level so much. We have no knowledge about cultures that we cannot "tap" by our expertise. No writing and monments - no data. No data - they were not scientific. Also, WTF with the Decartian axis and "what if" question? What if you explain what kind of stuff you measure in y axis?

[TheStfu1000]

but what about mention of any chinese or japanese or australian (actually i dont think australia existed then) science?

[BlameRepublicans]

Close but no cigar. I believe what I believe b/c I've collected as many facts as I can, made an analysis of them and came to a conclusion. I WISH religious non-sense were true so that I knew I could see my grand-father again someday, and that Hitler was roasting in Hell for what he did. But what I want, and what the fact tell me are 2 different things. Religion is an evil horrible thing. I've studied history enough to know this as fact, and not color it with my personal faith.

[unapologeticmind]

@BlameRepublicans You believe that you are right because it makes you feel better. First time I've heard that such a thing makes people religious. There's a lot of stupid and ugly people who believe that they are handsome and intelligent because it makes them feel better, but that doesn't make them religious. FWIW, I never claimed that I was religious, that'a a belief of yours based on me not accepting your one-sided depiction of a historic period that I have studied a lot...

[BlameRepublicans]

@unapologeticmind if I "believe whatever makes me feel better" I would be religious, which I am not. LOL PWNED x 2.

[unapologeticmind]

@BlameRepublicans Believe whatever makes you feel better...