3 ms·

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. T

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.
- unknownkadath 8y ago
  Replying here since we ran out of room down below: Compared to this Nature article, Ataturk was very direct. Read these quotes that I found using 3 seconds of difficult googling, and then decide on what side of the debate he would land. "I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men" [1] "It is known by the world that, in our state administration, our main program is the Republican People's Party program. The principles it covers are the main lines that illuminate us in management and politics. But these principles should never be held equal to the dogmas of books that are assumed to have descended from the sky. We have received our inspirations directly from life, not from sky or unseen." [2] -------------------------- [1] Quoted in Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango; "In a book published in 1928, Grace Ellison quotes [Atatürk], presumably in 1926-27", Grace Ellison Turkey Today (London: Hutchinson, 1928) [2] Atatürk'ün Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'nin V. Dönem 3. Yasama Yılını Açış Konuşmaları (in Turkish). "... Dünyaca bilinmektedir ki, bizim devlet yönetimimizdeki ana programımız, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi programıdır. Bunun kapsadığı prensipler, yönetimde ve politikada bizi aydınlatıcı ana çizgilerdir. Fakat bu prensipleri, gökten indiği sanılan kitapların doğmalarıyla asla bir tutmamalıdır. Biz, ilhamlarımızı, gökten ve gaipten değil, doğrudan doğruya yaşamdan almış bulunuyoruz."
mcguire 8y ago
As an aside... "...how that authority [of scientific thought] waned in the mid-20th century and today..." The high point of the authority of science in the United States was probably between ~1950, after Sputnik, and ~1980, say before Reagan's "Star Wars" proposal. Certainly, the descent had started by the early '90s, when a scientist went before a congressional committee and couldn't find anything more useful to say about the SSC project than "the God particle". The latter brings up a good point: the authority of science would probably be more respected if scientists didn't spend so much time fighting each other.
- unknownkadath 8y ago
  It had some trouble in mid 20th century Germany, which is what I gather the article was hinting at during its discussion of Hannah Arendt.

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.
unknownkadath 8y ago
Replying here since we ran out of room down below: Compared to this Nature article, Ataturk was very direct. Read these quotes that I found using 3 seconds of difficult googling, and then decide on what side of the debate he would land. "I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men" [1] "It is known by the world that, in our state administration, our main program is the Republican People's Party program. The principles it covers are the main lines that illuminate us in management and politics. But these principles should never be held equal to the dogmas of books that are assumed to have descended from the sky. We have received our inspirations directly from life, not from sky or unseen." [2] -------------------------- [1] Quoted in Atatürk: The Biography of the Founder of Modern Turkey, by Andrew Mango; "In a book published in 1928, Grace Ellison quotes [Atatürk], presumably in 1926-27", Grace Ellison Turkey Today (London: Hutchinson, 1928) [2] Atatürk'ün Türkiye Büyük Millet Meclisi'nin V. Dönem 3. Yasama Yılını Açış Konuşmaları (in Turkish). "... Dünyaca bilinmektedir ki, bizim devlet yönetimimizdeki ana programımız, Cumhuriyet Halk Partisi programıdır. Bunun kapsadığı prensipler, yönetimde ve politikada bizi aydınlatıcı ana çizgilerdir. Fakat bu prensipleri, gökten indiği sanılan kitapların doğmalarıyla asla bir tutmamalıdır. Biz, ilhamlarımızı, gökten ve gaipten değil, doğrudan doğruya yaşamdan almış bulunuyoruz."

mcguire 8y ago

As an aside... "...how that authority [of scientific thought] waned in the mid-20th century and today..." The high point of the authority of science in the United States was probably between ~1950, after Sputnik, and ~1980, say before Reagan's "Star Wars" proposal. Certainly, the descent had started by the early '90s, when a scientist went before a congressional committee and couldn't find anything more useful to say about the SSC project than "the God particle". The latter brings up a good point: the authority of science would probably be more respected if scientists didn't spend so much time fighting each other.

unknownkadath 8y ago
It had some trouble in mid 20th century Germany, which is what I gather the article was hinting at during its discussion of Hannah Arendt.