Posts by BenWilson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Actually, the Dark Ages were called that in very large part because of the almost complete loss of Greek learning within the scholarly circles of western Europe (which was effectively identical with the Roman church.)
The emergence from it was also from a rediscovery of this heritage, mostly by the same Church. Western Europeans were also not the only Christians by a long shot, nor was Rome their only center.
A lineage of scientific theory by no means travels solely through Western culture or the Church, which came very late to the party, and did not stay long.
I would hardly suggest "Western culture" had much to do with it except in so far as it was devoted to the science of war. I was speaking entirely about Christianity, and its main representatives at the time of the Renaissance, the Catholic Church. But yes, there was plenty going on outside of Christendom, thank goodness.
I'm not saying I think Christianity is choice, and I'm particularly not saying that it was the one true path to science. Quite the opposite, in fact, I think it's something that gives orthodox science its peculiar flavour. But it's worth remembering that Western science flamed to ascendancy during a time of it's dominance, whenever one feels tempted to say that all this religion has ever done is suppress science. If that was what it was doing, then it did it very poorly.
-
Like....what?
Like the kind that non-western scientists came up with. Can you not even imagine anything different? Is it inconceivable?
That isn't to say that they're always done perfectly, but the principle (hypothesise, test, record observations, discard/don't discard hypothesis) is sound.
So sound it's not worth discussing alternatives? Or even being aware of any?
Or maybe because it's to the advantage of a lot of people for science to be discredited.
Or both. That's probably a factor, for sure.
Scientific thinking is really not that peculiar, or even difficult.
This will turn into a semantic debate fast. How about I say it's uncommon instead?
Actually, I believe most scientists are strongly in favour of children being taught about religion. All religions. I absolutely am - they're a hugely important part of history, society, and culture.
I notice you don't acknowledge that they're also a hugely important part of science, at least the history thereof. Why is that?
-
I don't know if I agree with this entirely, because there's a strong element of cultural superiority to the whole argument which largely ignores scientific development in non-Western areas, but the case can be made.
This troubles me too. It's one of the main reasons I don't trust Western scientific dogma about the roots of science. It seems to me that other kinds of science are possible than the kind that Westerners came up with. There may be more than one viable scientific method, and the dominant one might be suboptimal, but powerful enough to hold the others back.
-
Over dinner I thought of a better way of saying this: Christian thought and Western science have common roots. The kind of thinking that led to one led to the other also.
This is really based on my own prejudices about science, which are that it is predominantly a highly forceful and proselytizing way of thinking, one that has no real compunction about smashing previous edifices of thinking to pieces, and bugger the consequences of doing so - the Truth is more important.
At least that was its history. Now it may well have gone beyond that again, because it has amassed such a monopoly on the Truth, it is extremely difficult for accepted scientific ideas to be smashed. To challenge the foundations of science receives very short shrift from scientists, who limit the domain of what may be smashed to the domain in which they move, that of the periphery of scientific knowledge, which no one but specialists can even understand. To challenge the core ideas at all is simply considered poorly educated. Kids are taught a huge array of scientific facts without ever being asked to challenge any of them, or being shown how it was that other ideas might have been compelling, and then disproven. This is left until the final years of training - everyone else simply receives these ideas as gospel, and trusts that they have been proven, or is alienated from the entire discipline.
I'm not saying it should be any other way - scientists are successfully trained via this method. But they are actually quite a small proportion of people in the world, and their way of thinking is actually pretty peculiar. The rest of humanity may very well appreciate something a little more inclusive, and I think the rising distrust of speaking in the name of science derives from this. It's moving from a religion of the people to a religion of power, in much the same way that all successful religions do. People resist the idea of children being indoctrinated into anything that claims to be the truth without discussing alternatives, precisely because bad experiences of other religions have taught us to. Indeed, a great many people of scientific bent would rather than children were taught nothing about religion at all. It's amazing that they can't see the parallel in this to the arrogance of Christianity.
-
Do you mean that Western (?) religion has been too either/or?
No, I mean more that either/or thinking probably sped science along it's path. It's the strange paradox that only by being wrong most of the time can we hope to actually be right some of the time. If we insist on being right all the time, we discover nothing, and end up just staying wrong.
You don't think you might be under-estimating the scientific contribution of pagan Greece, Rome and Egypt? (I understand the basic principle could still apply, but you appear in that paragraph to be tying it pretty explicitly to a monotheistic controlling religion.)
The works of the ancient world mostly survived because of the Church rather than in spite of it. Yes, they were hugely influential on science, and they were hugely influential on the Church too. The example of Socrates has always struck me as drawing very stark parallels to that of Christ.
-
You're too clever by half, young man. Garth puts it plain and simple. God set it all in motion, and He's not going to let humans wreck His planet. He designed it better than that.
-
I'm not sure if the "religious unbelief" thing is really confined to religion/atheism. Christianity has such deep roots in European countries and colonies that we don't really notice that almost all of our way of seeing the world is heavily colored by it. The proselytizing urge extends to wanting to change the way other people see everything. I think monotheism is also symptomatic of a tendency to think in extremes. Which can be extremely bad, but it can also be extremely good. Some truths can only be found that way.
Christianity is a pretty damned arrogant idea, that there is only one God, and that we know Him and have favor with Him. Having been trained to that, it could easily lead to the kind of cockiness that perhaps Truth might even be discoverable. I don't think it's a coincidence that Science's cradle was in such an environment. It's the rebellious child of religion, and it surpasses the parent, but it's still from the same bloodline.
-
I prefer to think of it as a bat-cave.
-
It's probably the most self contained office of anyone I know. Fridge, kettle, water cooler, cupboard full of tools, alcohol, library, exercise equipment, bikes, some weaponry, even a boat. I've got a hammock, but I decided not to set it up, it could be just a little toooo tempting. My wife was also not amused at the idea ;-)
-
Hi Ben, you mean solutions such as this one?
Precisely. I went to that mill a number of times - my brother worked there. Went I asked why they didn't use the rail he shrugged. "I know. It's RIGHT THERE".
Last ←Newer Page 1 … 760 761 762 763 764 … 1066 Older→ First