6 ms·

You realize the scientific method was invented by medieval monks, right?

heavenlyblue 8y ago
Because during medieval times monks were the only ones educated enough to be able to do so. Not because religion helped them. Let's not forget that during the same times we were struggling with proving the Earth was circling around the Sun because of what the scriptures said.
- scottlocklin 8y ago
  There's a decent argument to be made that it is an inherently Roman Catholic ideology. For example, no other civilization came up with the idea; the medieval scholastics did, and heralded it through the modern day. Obviously there's more to the argument than that, but there's no use talking about it unless you've studied the theology of the day. And you are incorrect, during medieval times, monks were not the "only ones educated enough to be able to do so." Jews, merchants, royals were all quite educated. To say nothing of scholars in other civilizations, some of which operated at a higher technological and cultural level than the West did.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    Please clear this up in terms of the names of the medieval monks as Wikipedia would easily disagree with you on this one.
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      Please define "this" -I made several statements. I don't really care what wikipedia says about much of anything.
      - heavenlyblue 8y ago
        You stated scientific method was invented by medieval monks. But even ancient Greeks were thinking of this through a concept called dialectic. So you have no basis for your arguments as you're orders of magnitude away from the truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
        scottlocklin 8y ago
        The scientific method was first stated by Robert Grosseteste and later refined by Roger Bacon. They were both, FWIIW medieval monks -in the 1200s. Science and the scientific method and the business of scientific inquiry itself remained an unbroken tradition from the moment Grosseteste first stated it up until the present day. From Robbie BigBalls to James Clerk Maxwell; you could trace the direct scientific lineage. The Greeks didn't do anything remotely resembling science; I've read, for example the remaining fragments of Eudoxus and Hipparchus (and Claudius Ptolemy); they had no concept of hypothesis experiment and verification. It was just model building -like modern Economics or something like noodle theory; it's only right by accident, because they have no way of testing when they're wrong or right. Cool idea using math to model reality: it's not the same thing. This isn't something I just trot out for dick waving contests on the internet: I actually know something about it and thought about it well beyond the reading of wikipedia quackery. Avicenna, for example, was a very interesting character and arguably he and other islamic thinkers may have influenced Grosseteste. Heck, you could argue that Kautilya had developed something like the scientific method. However, none of them birthed the scientific tradition: the monks did. I'm sorry if this triggers you or whatever; it's a historical fact -as self evidently true as the existence of Julius Caesar or Philip II of Spain.
        heavenlyblue 8y ago
        >> This isn't something I just trot out for dick waving contests on the internet: I actually know something about it and thought about it well beyond the reading of wikipedia quackery. I don't think you know about it. Grosseteste directly quotes Aristotle while developing his idea for "scientific reasoning". And you're somehow denying the progress made by the Greeks/Romans whose works were translated by Grosseteste himself. You sound like a typical religious fanatic who tends to deny the fact that religion per se did nothing for science. Church as an organisation - could, but again - in spite of religion. >> I'm sorry if this triggers you or whatever; it's a historical fact -as self evidently true as the existence of Julius Caesar or Philip II of Spain. I am not the one who is triggered. You're bringing many names and points, writing paragraphs here, but you are yet to quote a single source which you didn't do. Not even going to start on the definite lack of attention to punctuation you tend to exhibit which is usually a sign of a person whose ego got a burn.
- lliamander 8y ago
  That's not quite how it happened, or do you think Ptolemy came up with the geocentric model because of the Jewish scriptures? https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-sma...
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    Nah, come on - the parent is directly stating "medieval monks came up with the scientific method thus religion is not against the science". I am stating "even if medieval monks came up with scientific method (although I disagree with this), then they did so in spite of religion, not because it helped them". Besides, Ptolemy is a guy from pre-medieval times. That, again - is against whatever the parent said, that scientific method was invented during medieval times.
    - scottlocklin 8y ago
      You could at least quote it without editorialization. Monks did come up with the scientific method. The modern idea that "religion is against the science" is hilariously Freudian: holders of power (almost entirely atheists in the west) will often be against science. There are countless examples of this. You could crack the NYT editorial page on any given day and be confronted with learned anti-scientific nonsense that would make the persecutors of Gallileo blush.
      - heavenlyblue 8y ago
        >> You could crack the NYT editorial page on any given day and be confronted with learned anti-scientific nonsense that would make the persecutors of Gallileo blush. Oh, so you agree with the fact that religion is at least close to be as bad as anti-scientific nonsense? >> Monks did come up with the scientific method. Give me a source which directly says that "monks have come up with the scientific method". I can give you one: if you open "A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, on the first 200 pages on it you'll find that Aristotle is considered to be father of the modern science. Why? Because of a piece called "Posterior Analytics". Look it up, at least.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  only ones educated enough They also seemed to be the only ones with a combination of food security and leisure time, from what I gather.
trhway 8y ago
>You realize the scientific method was invented by medieval monks, right? 10% ad valorem tax on everybody else who was struggling to provide even for themselves definitely helped to have plenty of a free time which was mostly wasted on the things far from any scientific methods.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Your point being?

Because during medieval times monks were the only ones educated enough to be able to do so. Not because religion helped them. Let's not forget that during the same times we were struggling with proving the Earth was circling around the Sun because of what the scriptures said.

scottlocklin 8y ago
There's a decent argument to be made that it is an inherently Roman Catholic ideology. For example, no other civilization came up with the idea; the medieval scholastics did, and heralded it through the modern day. Obviously there's more to the argument than that, but there's no use talking about it unless you've studied the theology of the day. And you are incorrect, during medieval times, monks were not the "only ones educated enough to be able to do so." Jews, merchants, royals were all quite educated. To say nothing of scholars in other civilizations, some of which operated at a higher technological and cultural level than the West did.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  Please clear this up in terms of the names of the medieval monks as Wikipedia would easily disagree with you on this one.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    Please define "this" -I made several statements. I don't really care what wikipedia says about much of anything.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      You stated scientific method was invented by medieval monks. But even ancient Greeks were thinking of this through a concept called dialectic. So you have no basis for your arguments as you're orders of magnitude away from the truth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_scientific_method
      - scottlocklin 8y ago
        The scientific method was first stated by Robert Grosseteste and later refined by Roger Bacon. They were both, FWIIW medieval monks -in the 1200s. Science and the scientific method and the business of scientific inquiry itself remained an unbroken tradition from the moment Grosseteste first stated it up until the present day. From Robbie BigBalls to James Clerk Maxwell; you could trace the direct scientific lineage. The Greeks didn't do anything remotely resembling science; I've read, for example the remaining fragments of Eudoxus and Hipparchus (and Claudius Ptolemy); they had no concept of hypothesis experiment and verification. It was just model building -like modern Economics or something like noodle theory; it's only right by accident, because they have no way of testing when they're wrong or right. Cool idea using math to model reality: it's not the same thing. This isn't something I just trot out for dick waving contests on the internet: I actually know something about it and thought about it well beyond the reading of wikipedia quackery. Avicenna, for example, was a very interesting character and arguably he and other islamic thinkers may have influenced Grosseteste. Heck, you could argue that Kautilya had developed something like the scientific method. However, none of them birthed the scientific tradition: the monks did. I'm sorry if this triggers you or whatever; it's a historical fact -as self evidently true as the existence of Julius Caesar or Philip II of Spain.
        heavenlyblue 8y ago
        >> This isn't something I just trot out for dick waving contests on the internet: I actually know something about it and thought about it well beyond the reading of wikipedia quackery. I don't think you know about it. Grosseteste directly quotes Aristotle while developing his idea for "scientific reasoning". And you're somehow denying the progress made by the Greeks/Romans whose works were translated by Grosseteste himself. You sound like a typical religious fanatic who tends to deny the fact that religion per se did nothing for science. Church as an organisation - could, but again - in spite of religion. >> I'm sorry if this triggers you or whatever; it's a historical fact -as self evidently true as the existence of Julius Caesar or Philip II of Spain. I am not the one who is triggered. You're bringing many names and points, writing paragraphs here, but you are yet to quote a single source which you didn't do. Not even going to start on the definite lack of attention to punctuation you tend to exhibit which is usually a sign of a person whose ego got a burn.
lliamander 8y ago
That's not quite how it happened, or do you think Ptolemy came up with the geocentric model because of the Jewish scriptures? https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-sma...
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  Nah, come on - the parent is directly stating "medieval monks came up with the scientific method thus religion is not against the science". I am stating "even if medieval monks came up with scientific method (although I disagree with this), then they did so in spite of religion, not because it helped them". Besides, Ptolemy is a guy from pre-medieval times. That, again - is against whatever the parent said, that scientific method was invented during medieval times.
  - scottlocklin 8y ago
    You could at least quote it without editorialization. Monks did come up with the scientific method. The modern idea that "religion is against the science" is hilariously Freudian: holders of power (almost entirely atheists in the west) will often be against science. There are countless examples of this. You could crack the NYT editorial page on any given day and be confronted with learned anti-scientific nonsense that would make the persecutors of Gallileo blush.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      >> You could crack the NYT editorial page on any given day and be confronted with learned anti-scientific nonsense that would make the persecutors of Gallileo blush. Oh, so you agree with the fact that religion is at least close to be as bad as anti-scientific nonsense? >> Monks did come up with the scientific method. Give me a source which directly says that "monks have come up with the scientific method". I can give you one: if you open "A History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell, on the first 200 pages on it you'll find that Aristotle is considered to be father of the modern science. Why? Because of a piece called "Posterior Analytics". Look it up, at least.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
only ones educated enough They also seemed to be the only ones with a combination of food security and leisure time, from what I gather.

trhway 8y ago

>You realize the scientific method was invented by medieval monks, right? 10% ad valorem tax on everybody else who was struggling to provide even for themselves definitely helped to have plenty of a free time which was mostly wasted on the things far from any scientific methods.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

Your point being?