3 ms·

>> 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 readin

>> 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.
scottlocklin 8y ago
> You sound like a typical religious fanatic who tends to deny the fa... FWIIW, I'm an atheist: overtly and publicly so, under my real name even. Not that this should matter; if I were a foaming religious looney handing out bibles on a street corner; everything I said is still a historical fact. Since we're psychoanalyzing each other; I used to be a smug Dawkins tier ignoramous myself; I grew up, noticed most of the physicists at LBNL who were worth two shits were religious and read a book or two. Your apparent bigotry against religious people is offensive and stupid, and your understanding of the history of science, or even what science actually is, is sorely lacking. >You're bringing many names and points, writing paragraphs here, but you are yet to quote a single source... > ... on the definite lack of attention to punctuation... Projection is a hell of a drug.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago
  And yet still, where are your historical sources, not your opinions? You have’t provided one.
dang 8y ago
Please do not take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how provocative another comment was. Personal attacks in particular will get you banned here, and your comment contained at least two. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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.

scottlocklin 8y ago

> You sound like a typical religious fanatic who tends to deny the fa... FWIIW, I'm an atheist: overtly and publicly so, under my real name even. Not that this should matter; if I were a foaming religious looney handing out bibles on a street corner; everything I said is still a historical fact. Since we're psychoanalyzing each other; I used to be a smug Dawkins tier ignoramous myself; I grew up, noticed most of the physicists at LBNL who were worth two shits were religious and read a book or two. Your apparent bigotry against religious people is offensive and stupid, and your understanding of the history of science, or even what science actually is, is sorely lacking. >You're bringing many names and points, writing paragraphs here, but you are yet to quote a single source... > ... on the definite lack of attention to punctuation... Projection is a hell of a drug.

heavenlyblue 8y ago
And yet still, where are your historical sources, not your opinions? You have’t provided one.

dang 8y ago

Please do not take HN threads further into flamewar, regardless of how provocative another comment was. Personal attacks in particular will get you banned here, and your comment contained at least two. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html