6 ms·

Fascinating...thanks for posting this... I especially appreciated this quote: >>“Basically, this was the birth of the modern scientific process,” she says. “I

Fascinating...thanks for posting this... I especially appreciated this quote: >>“Basically, this was the birth of the modern scientific process,” she says. “Inspired by what they saw in the workshops, the great natural philosophy and medical societies of Europe would, by the mid-seventeenth century, embrace laboratory experimentation as the basis for accumulating new knowledge about the physical world.”<< The Renaissance was a fascinating period in history...knowledge intentionally repressed for approximately four centuries during the Dark Ages, followed by a gradual rebirth... I've often wondered what those of exceptional intellectual and/or creative abilities had to endure just because they were born into a time that refused to let them "bloom"...so many obstacles in their way...that must have been hard to bear...

scottlocklin 11y ago
Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste kind of invented the scientific method in the 1200s.... The religious wars and black death put a lot of dampers on Western Science during the high middle ages, and but science was not exactly deliberately repressed.
- clock_tower 11y ago
  Indeed. Science wasn't suppressed in the Middle Ages and restored during the Renaissance; it flourished through the 1300s, then was stopped dead by the Black Death, the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and the wars of religion -- roughly 1350 to 1600-1650, not 1000 to 1400. Improvement in the human condition in Europe was stopped for longer by that series of catastrophes (and was also badly slowed down by the Renaissance, which introduced a new fashion for Plato, aristocracy, and philosophy instead of the old style of Aristotle, observation, and practical knowledge). Conditions had improved dramatically until the early 1300s; then they stagnated, sometimes even going backwards, until about the 1750s in England, a bit later on the Continent.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - benbreen 11y ago
    I appreciate that you're defending the pre-Renaissance period from being called the Dark Ages (a term worth abandoning if there ever was one) but I think you're being led astray here by equating a breakdown in "the human condition" with the status of scientific knowledge. The demographic/epidemiological/economic/political crises of the 17th century, after all, overlapped with the period that's traditional considered the high point of the Scientific Revolution - heck, Newton even began working on his optics and calculus during an outbreak of the Plague! - so it's not clear to me that two actually have much to do with one another. Granted, a certain baseline for material conditions and political stability needs to exist for scientific work to take place, but beyond that I don't buy the argument that something like, say, wars of religion or periods of plague necessarily leads to intellectual stagnation. From the 17th century crisis to WWII, I'd actually say that it's arguably the opposite. I'm also struck by the fact that the period where you consider science to have "stopped dead" overlaps with Copernicus, Bacon, and Galileo! All this isn't intended to be argumentative at all, I just find debating this stuff to be interesting, and I'm an early modern historian so I couldn't resist being pedantic about it.
    - clock_tower 11y ago
      As I'd said, the human condition stopped advancing for longer than science did. Advances in science started up again by 1600, maybe earlier (the history of science isn't one of my specialties -- Copernicus and Bacon were late 1500s, right?), while the human condition remained stagnant for more than a century longer.
    - scottlocklin 11y ago
      Kenneth Clark thinks the 12th-13th century was special in some mysterious way; pointing out that all kinds of interesting progress happened then. There was certainly a great deal of learning which occurred then; in addition to Bacon and Grosseteste; Witelo, Albertus Magnus, Petrus Peregrinus, Leonardo Fibonacci, Abelard. In the spiritual realm, Francis of Assisi; an important thinker even to the non-religious. Clark points out that, oddly, a lot of interesting and nice things happened in other civilizations at around the same time. I can't list any at present, as my world history isn't as good as Clark's, but it's in his documentary. I dunno, maybe the weather was particularly conducive to elevated thinking. The conventional wisdom is that science was hamstrung by the black death, since something like half the population of Europe died off. While Newton escaped a plague at Cambridge during his miraculous year, that's not the same level of disaster as half the population going away. Anyway, history nerding is fun.
- eru 11y ago
  I thought the Religious Wars (like the 30 Years War) were early modern? Or which medieval wars are you talking about? The crusades, or the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, or the fall of Song China?
  - scottlocklin 11y ago
    I suppose those later wars do fall under the term "Religious wars" -but there was the 100 years war, the wars in the northern countries, the Papal wars, the Avignon Schism... I guess you could count the Crusades and Ottoman conquest also. All of these had some religious component to them. I don't know any significant amount Chinese history, so I can't comment there.

scottlocklin 11y ago

Roger Bacon and Robert Grosseteste kind of invented the scientific method in the 1200s.... The religious wars and black death put a lot of dampers on Western Science during the high middle ages, and but science was not exactly deliberately repressed.

clock_tower 11y ago
Indeed. Science wasn't suppressed in the Middle Ages and restored during the Renaissance; it flourished through the 1300s, then was stopped dead by the Black Death, the Great Schism, the Protestant Reformation, and the wars of religion -- roughly 1350 to 1600-1650, not 1000 to 1400. Improvement in the human condition in Europe was stopped for longer by that series of catastrophes (and was also badly slowed down by the Renaissance, which introduced a new fashion for Plato, aristocracy, and philosophy instead of the old style of Aristotle, observation, and practical knowledge). Conditions had improved dramatically until the early 1300s; then they stagnated, sometimes even going backwards, until about the 1750s in England, a bit later on the Continent.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- benbreen 11y ago
  I appreciate that you're defending the pre-Renaissance period from being called the Dark Ages (a term worth abandoning if there ever was one) but I think you're being led astray here by equating a breakdown in "the human condition" with the status of scientific knowledge. The demographic/epidemiological/economic/political crises of the 17th century, after all, overlapped with the period that's traditional considered the high point of the Scientific Revolution - heck, Newton even began working on his optics and calculus during an outbreak of the Plague! - so it's not clear to me that two actually have much to do with one another. Granted, a certain baseline for material conditions and political stability needs to exist for scientific work to take place, but beyond that I don't buy the argument that something like, say, wars of religion or periods of plague necessarily leads to intellectual stagnation. From the 17th century crisis to WWII, I'd actually say that it's arguably the opposite. I'm also struck by the fact that the period where you consider science to have "stopped dead" overlaps with Copernicus, Bacon, and Galileo! All this isn't intended to be argumentative at all, I just find debating this stuff to be interesting, and I'm an early modern historian so I couldn't resist being pedantic about it.
  - clock_tower 11y ago
    As I'd said, the human condition stopped advancing for longer than science did. Advances in science started up again by 1600, maybe earlier (the history of science isn't one of my specialties -- Copernicus and Bacon were late 1500s, right?), while the human condition remained stagnant for more than a century longer.
  - scottlocklin 11y ago
    Kenneth Clark thinks the 12th-13th century was special in some mysterious way; pointing out that all kinds of interesting progress happened then. There was certainly a great deal of learning which occurred then; in addition to Bacon and Grosseteste; Witelo, Albertus Magnus, Petrus Peregrinus, Leonardo Fibonacci, Abelard. In the spiritual realm, Francis of Assisi; an important thinker even to the non-religious. Clark points out that, oddly, a lot of interesting and nice things happened in other civilizations at around the same time. I can't list any at present, as my world history isn't as good as Clark's, but it's in his documentary. I dunno, maybe the weather was particularly conducive to elevated thinking. The conventional wisdom is that science was hamstrung by the black death, since something like half the population of Europe died off. While Newton escaped a plague at Cambridge during his miraculous year, that's not the same level of disaster as half the population going away. Anyway, history nerding is fun.
eru 11y ago
I thought the Religious Wars (like the 30 Years War) were early modern? Or which medieval wars are you talking about? The crusades, or the Ottoman conquest of Constantinople, or the fall of Song China?
- scottlocklin 11y ago
  I suppose those later wars do fall under the term "Religious wars" -but there was the 100 years war, the wars in the northern countries, the Papal wars, the Avignon Schism... I guess you could count the Crusades and Ottoman conquest also. All of these had some religious component to them. I don't know any significant amount Chinese history, so I can't comment there.