7 ms·

The opening paragraphs of this article are just another example of what appears to be an ongoing attempt to manufacture conflict between "religion" and "science

by phd514 8y ago

The opening paragraphs of this article are just another example of what appears to be an ongoing attempt to manufacture conflict between "religion" and "science". The books that were burned at Ephesus were explicitly identified in Acts 19:19 as sorcery books, not "books of nature". Stuff like this gets published in Nature and people wonder why "science" is losing its credibility?

unknownkadath 8y ago
Oh, well, as long as it was sorcery. Burning those books is a completely normal thing for completely normal people to do.
- Fellshard 8y ago
  Have you... read the passage, or done the slightest research into the historical context in which it was set?
  - unknownkadath 8y ago
    Have you? Did you read the article? What in god's name is phd514 arguing with? No where in the damn fine article is the phrase "books of nature" mentioned. The article is describing the context in which modern scientific thought gained currency among the educated and the powerful, both in 17th century Europe and the 19th century Ottoman Empire, how that authority waned in the mid-20th century and today, and how we can work to use those historical examples to "break the whack-a-mole" machine rather than playing whack-a-mole with vaccine deniers, flat-earthers, and so forth. Here is the context from the fine article the poster is upset with: "Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire. Look carefully, and you see geometric images on some of the pages." In the context of 1649, a painting that depicted the burning of geometry books had a very particular meaning. However, instead of noticing that the discussion is focused on Le Suer's painting, phd413 decided that his religion was being attacked. Does this context make phd514's comment make any more sense? If not, in what context does it make sense? The only context that I can see is that of a religious person who didn't read the fine article before getting upset and commenting. As an aside, so what if the bible says those books were full of sorcery? So what if they were? I don't reckon at any time that burning books has been a considered a great idea by people who read, you know, books. (I might make an exception if you found an authentic functional Necronomicon.)
    - identity-haver 8y ago
      It's not at all clear that the books contain "geometry" per se in the painting. I can't find a source either way but if you've ever seen alchemical or astrological figures they could be mistaken for math. The people were destroying their own books after hearing a new way of looking at the world. How different is this from some kid throwing away his Joel Osteen book after taking a philosophy class? But I agree that this was impulsive and they should have given them away instead of destroying them. phd514 makes a valid point: this article needlessly provokes conflict between science and religion, even saying with concern that "St Paul is making a comeback", the horror, as if encouraging people to burn books and "reject science" is his main work in history.
      - unknownkadath 8y ago
        That wasn't phd514's point at all. It's clear he didn't bother to read the article. (lol, look at me, I'm upset people didn't read the article before commenting. I'm turning into such an old fart. Maybe I should load up my newsreader and post about cats. Also, you should look up what Pythagoras believed. Whew!) Now, if you're making an entirely separate argument that the author went out of his way hurt people's feelings and "provoke conflict," that's another story. I don't think that's the case, but maybe I've got a tin ear for that sort of thing these days. I'm not persuaded. Let's say that, hey, maybe he did. My response is, "So, what?" The target audience for this article or this book isn't the sort of person who is going to get their feelings hurt by suggesting that the St. Paul depicted in the painting (which had its own context, the 17th century European context, which is the context described by the article). The target audience of this book is the set of people who commonly think, "Gee, I wish I could convince lots more folks that global warming is real before large swaths of the world become uninhabitable by multi-cellular animal life." Frankly, the kind of person who would let this up their nose is probably not going to be persuaded by anything we have to say, anyway.
        identity-haver 8y ago
        It matters because there is a large overlap between the people who need to pay more attention to science and religious people (by both his and my estimate). So needlessly dragging a religious figure completely works against what he's trying to accomplish. He brings up Ataturk; imagine how Ataturk's modernization plan would have worked if he went out of his way to rail against the prophet Mohammed's perceived science denial.
identity-haver 8y ago
I don't understand why Nature has decided to dilute its brand by posting these poorly researched, non-peer reviewed blogs.
- unknownkadath 8y ago
  Nature has had book previews and book reviews for as long as I've been subscribed. Regarding the article being poorly researched, maybe you have a particular part that you felt was wrong? I'd hope that the author wouldn't need to research his new book before writing about it. I have no idea how an author would submit a book preview for peer review.

by phd514 8y ago

unknownkadath 8y ago

Oh, well, as long as it was sorcery. Burning those books is a completely normal thing for completely normal people to do.

Fellshard 8y ago
Have you... read the passage, or done the slightest research into the historical context in which it was set?
- unknownkadath 8y ago
  Have you? Did you read the article? What in god's name is phd514 arguing with? No where in the damn fine article is the phrase "books of nature" mentioned. The article is describing the context in which modern scientific thought gained currency among the educated and the powerful, both in 17th century Europe and the 19th century Ottoman Empire, how that authority waned in the mid-20th century and today, and how we can work to use those historical examples to "break the whack-a-mole" machine rather than playing whack-a-mole with vaccine deniers, flat-earthers, and so forth. Here is the context from the fine article the poster is upset with: "Hanging in the Louvre Museum in Paris is an imposing painting, The Preaching of St Paul at Ephesus. In this 1649 work by Eustache Le Sueur, the fiery apostle lifts his right hand as if scolding the audience, while clutching a book of scripture in his left. Among the rapt or fearful listeners are people busily throwing books into a fire. Look carefully, and you see geometric images on some of the pages." In the context of 1649, a painting that depicted the burning of geometry books had a very particular meaning. However, instead of noticing that the discussion is focused on Le Suer's painting, phd413 decided that his religion was being attacked. Does this context make phd514's comment make any more sense? If not, in what context does it make sense? The only context that I can see is that of a religious person who didn't read the fine article before getting upset and commenting. As an aside, so what if the bible says those books were full of sorcery? So what if they were? I don't reckon at any time that burning books has been a considered a great idea by people who read, you know, books. (I might make an exception if you found an authentic functional Necronomicon.)
  - identity-haver 8y ago
    It's not at all clear that the books contain "geometry" per se in the painting. I can't find a source either way but if you've ever seen alchemical or astrological figures they could be mistaken for math. The people were destroying their own books after hearing a new way of looking at the world. How different is this from some kid throwing away his Joel Osteen book after taking a philosophy class? But I agree that this was impulsive and they should have given them away instead of destroying them. phd514 makes a valid point: this article needlessly provokes conflict between science and religion, even saying with concern that "St Paul is making a comeback", the horror, as if encouraging people to burn books and "reject science" is his main work in history.
    - unknownkadath 8y ago
      That wasn't phd514's point at all. It's clear he didn't bother to read the article. (lol, look at me, I'm upset people didn't read the article before commenting. I'm turning into such an old fart. Maybe I should load up my newsreader and post about cats. Also, you should look up what Pythagoras believed. Whew!) Now, if you're making an entirely separate argument that the author went out of his way hurt people's feelings and "provoke conflict," that's another story. I don't think that's the case, but maybe I've got a tin ear for that sort of thing these days. I'm not persuaded. Let's say that, hey, maybe he did. My response is, "So, what?" The target audience for this article or this book isn't the sort of person who is going to get their feelings hurt by suggesting that the St. Paul depicted in the painting (which had its own context, the 17th century European context, which is the context described by the article). The target audience of this book is the set of people who commonly think, "Gee, I wish I could convince lots more folks that global warming is real before large swaths of the world become uninhabitable by multi-cellular animal life." Frankly, the kind of person who would let this up their nose is probably not going to be persuaded by anything we have to say, anyway.
      - identity-haver 8y ago
        It matters because there is a large overlap between the people who need to pay more attention to science and religious people (by both his and my estimate). So needlessly dragging a religious figure completely works against what he's trying to accomplish. He brings up Ataturk; imagine how Ataturk's modernization plan would have worked if he went out of his way to rail against the prophet Mohammed's perceived science denial.

identity-haver 8y ago

I don't understand why Nature has decided to dilute its brand by posting these poorly researched, non-peer reviewed blogs.

unknownkadath 8y ago
Nature has had book previews and book reviews for as long as I've been subscribed. Regarding the article being poorly researched, maybe you have a particular part that you felt was wrong? I'd hope that the author wouldn't need to research his new book before writing about it. I have no idea how an author would submit a book preview for peer review.