3 ms·

While what you're saying is strictly speaking true, Scott Alexander had a thesis on this: He noticed that the scientists of the day often ended up in trouble w

While what you're saying is strictly speaking true, Scott Alexander had a thesis on this: He noticed that the scientists of the day often ended up in trouble with the inquisition. And while, strictly speaking, it was for reasons not related to their scientific ideas, there is an insight: the sort of people who were curious about science were also curious and questioning about religion. In conclusion: - free thinkers are going to think freely - whether or not the church back then was anti-science is similar to the question of whether stop-and-search is racist today.

nabla9 8y ago
Good point. The difference between science, occult, and alchemy was not as clear at it is today. Science did not necessarily have any better methodology. Many great men spent their life studying stuff that didn't lead to anything in both science and other stuff. Galileo 1632: >Among the great men who have philosophized about the action of the tides, the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, but he became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness.
emiliobumachar 8y ago
Very good reference. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-a... "Did Giordano Bruno die for his astronomical discoveries or his atheism? False dichotomy: you can’t have a mind that questions the stars but never thinks to question the Bible. The best you can do is have a Bruno who questions both, but is savvy enough to know which questions he can get away with saying out loud. And the real Bruno wasn’t that savvy." [...] "The Church didn’t lift a finger against science. It just accidentally created a honeytrap that attracted and destroyed scientifically curious people."

nabla9 8y ago

Good point. The difference between science, occult, and alchemy was not as clear at it is today. Science did not necessarily have any better methodology. Many great men spent their life studying stuff that didn't lead to anything in both science and other stuff. Galileo 1632: >Among the great men who have philosophized about the action of the tides, the one who surprised me most is Kepler. He was a person of independent genius, but he became interested in the action of the moon on the water, and in other occult phenomena, and similar childishness.

emiliobumachar 8y ago

Very good reference. http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-and-the-parable-of-lightning/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/10/23/kolmogorov-complicity-a... "Did Giordano Bruno die for his astronomical discoveries or his atheism? False dichotomy: you can’t have a mind that questions the stars but never thinks to question the Bible. The best you can do is have a Bruno who questions both, but is savvy enough to know which questions he can get away with saying out loud. And the real Bruno wasn’t that savvy." [...] "The Church didn’t lift a finger against science. It just accidentally created a honeytrap that attracted and destroyed scientifically curious people."