5 ms·

I mean are historians wrong for calling it the "dark ages"? I'm not disputing that there's always 'science going on' but at what quantity and how much impact d

I mean are historians wrong for calling it the "dark ages"? I'm not disputing that there's always 'science going on' but at what quantity and how much impact did it have? It seems like scientifically the needle wasn't moved as much in the 900 years of dark ages as in the 70 years of the enlightenment. However, it may have, in all seriousness, been hype, from a few major breakthroughs and charismatic characters during that time, that gave it a much more visible place in history than deserved. I'm not a scholar in this stuff...and could be saying completely wrong boneheaded stuff so please feel free to correct me, if I'm off base. :)

l33t2328 5y ago
Historians generally don’t call it the “dark ages.” Moreover, it’s inherently ridiculous to look at the progress of science and technology on some sort of linear path from less technologically advanced to more technologically advanced.
- edmcnulty101 5y ago
  That's exactly what I'm saying. Its not a linear path. Its a bumpy path that's filled with huge upticks at times and no movement at times.
  - l33t2328 5y ago
    And I’m saying you’re thinking about it incorrectly. Technology isn’t a line that can be graphed from less advanced to more advanced. If you think deeply about it for any length of time, you can see why that absurd notion deconstructs.
    - edmcnulty101 5y ago
      I mean we went from caveman without the wheel to launching a Tesla into space and having a magic phone that has the sum of human knowledge at our fingertips. There does appear to be a less advanced to more advanced technology trend?
      - l33t2328 5y ago
        I agree, but describing the “dark ages” as a time of low technological progress is wrong for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being that it is atrociously eurocentric, and moreover it ignores the many important inventions(for example, crop rotation) to come out of Europe at the time.
        edmcnulty101 5y ago
        But it was a time of low technological progress though wasn't it? Not saying it was NO progress. Just low progress. Am I wrong? I'm not a history scholar, so please let me know if I'm off base.
        l33t2328 5y ago
        No, it was a time of immense progress. In particular, in the middle east.

l33t2328 5y ago

Historians generally don’t call it the “dark ages.” Moreover, it’s inherently ridiculous to look at the progress of science and technology on some sort of linear path from less technologically advanced to more technologically advanced.

edmcnulty101 5y ago
That's exactly what I'm saying. Its not a linear path. Its a bumpy path that's filled with huge upticks at times and no movement at times.
- l33t2328 5y ago
  And I’m saying you’re thinking about it incorrectly. Technology isn’t a line that can be graphed from less advanced to more advanced. If you think deeply about it for any length of time, you can see why that absurd notion deconstructs.
  - edmcnulty101 5y ago
    I mean we went from caveman without the wheel to launching a Tesla into space and having a magic phone that has the sum of human knowledge at our fingertips. There does appear to be a less advanced to more advanced technology trend?
    - l33t2328 5y ago
      I agree, but describing the “dark ages” as a time of low technological progress is wrong for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which being that it is atrociously eurocentric, and moreover it ignores the many important inventions(for example, crop rotation) to come out of Europe at the time.
      - edmcnulty101 5y ago
        But it was a time of low technological progress though wasn't it? Not saying it was NO progress. Just low progress. Am I wrong? I'm not a history scholar, so please let me know if I'm off base.
        l33t2328 5y ago
        No, it was a time of immense progress. In particular, in the middle east.