4 ms·

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 t

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.
    - lliamander 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. The point of the essay is explaining how those ideas were a result of specific Christian theological commitments in contrast to pre-Christian pagan notions: things like linear time, non-animism, the rational mind coming from the Imago Dei, belief that the world is not an illusion, etc. The article cites Alfred North Whitehead, who said: "I do not think that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpungable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power of research: -- that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled." > 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. That's some rather bizarre special pleading. The post is well-argued and well-sourced. There's nothing inherently more authoritative about printing something in a book, and here I can actually provide you with my source, for free, over the internet.

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.
  - lliamander 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. The point of the essay is explaining how those ideas were a result of specific Christian theological commitments in contrast to pre-Christian pagan notions: things like linear time, non-animism, the rational mind coming from the Imago Dei, belief that the world is not an illusion, etc. The article cites Alfred North Whitehead, who said: "I do not think that I have even yet brought out the greatest contribution of medievalism to the formation of the scientific movement. I mean the inexpungable belief that every detailed occurrence can be correlated with its antecedents in a perfectly definite manner, exemplifying general principles. Without this belief the incredible labours of scientists would be without hope. It is this instinctive conviction, vividly poised before the imagination, which is the motive power of research: -- that there is a secret, a secret which can be unveiled." > 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. That's some rather bizarre special pleading. The post is well-argued and well-sourced. There's nothing inherently more authoritative about printing something in a book, and here I can actually provide you with my source, for free, over the internet.