3 ms·

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 sc

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
        Greek dialectic, while cool and useful, is not the same thing as the scientific method. It was an essential ingredient to science, but not science itself. The Islamic world had access to the same (and perhaps even more) Greek heritage, but did not have "science". Regarding this so-called fact "that religion per se did nothing for science" here is at least a series of arguments for the case that the particularities of Christian theology (in contrast with other belief systems of the time and prior) made a fertile intellectual ground for science as a concept and practice to develop: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/11/summa-origines-scientiarum-articulus-3.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/11/summa-origines-scientia...
        heavenlyblue 8y ago
        None of the points presented in that blog have been invented by Christians as most of the Christian philosphy was copied from Greek philosophy and then adapted to scriptures. And let’s be honest - a blog is not a source. Give me a book that is you have read and it gave you the historical knowledge about where Christian philosophical basis came from.

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
        Greek dialectic, while cool and useful, is not the same thing as the scientific method. It was an essential ingredient to science, but not science itself. The Islamic world had access to the same (and perhaps even more) Greek heritage, but did not have "science". Regarding this so-called fact "that religion per se did nothing for science" here is at least a series of arguments for the case that the particularities of Christian theology (in contrast with other belief systems of the time and prior) made a fertile intellectual ground for science as a concept and practice to develop: https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/11/summa-origines-scientiarum-articulus-3.html https://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/11/summa-origines-scientia...
        heavenlyblue 8y ago
        None of the points presented in that blog have been invented by Christians as most of the Christian philosphy was copied from Greek philosophy and then adapted to scriptures. And let’s be honest - a blog is not a source. Give me a book that is you have read and it gave you the historical knowledge about where Christian philosophical basis came from.