Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

3. Science in the fourteenth century: The novel mentions William of Ockham, Jean Buridan, Nicolas Oresme, and the calculators of Merton College. The first one is well-known because of his Occam's razor, one of the rules of modern scientific method. The others should be famous because they discovered the laws of movement (uniform and accelerated) more than two centuries before Galileo, but they have been ignored by those who'd like to show that the Middle Ages was a scientific black hole, and modern science started with Copernicus. Had you heard about these scientists before reading this book?

In chapter 8-bis (3 NOW Sharon) Sharon mentions Pierre Duhem. This is appropriate. Duhem re-discovered the scientists of the 14th century (those mentioned in this question), thus going against the standard scientific orthodoxy of his time (and ours) that considers the Middle Ages as a scientific black hole. Therefore Duhem was ignored and almost forgotten during a century, until Stanley Jaki re-discovered him at the end of the twentieth century. Now he is remembered by a good number of scientists, mainly those at the fringes of the current scientific establishment.

I have dedicated to Pierre Duhem two posts in my blog on popular science: Pierre Duhem: Realist or anit-realist? () and Pierre Duhem, Popper’s predecessor ()

Manuel wrote: "In chapter 8-bis (3 NOW Sharon) Sharon mentions Pierre Duhem. This is appropriate. Duhem re-discovered the scientists of the 14th century (those mentioned in this question), thus going against the ..."

That was one of the things, which I liked most about the book, despite its errors that revalued medieval science, and also the scholastic that since the appearance of Roscelino de Compiegne was being attacked, renewing the attacks in the sixteenth century, and causing the rupture in the seventeenth century with Descartes of this complains Jesús Trillo-Figueroa in his wonderful book "The world between scripts" /book/show/5... in which the author defends that Philosophy has reached an alley without exit. Descartes made the mistake of reversing the terms I think therefore I am", when it would be the other way around "I am then I think". On this subject I recommend professor Manuel Alfonseca's book "Everything is number" /book/show/4...

I like the way the newest scientific discoveries of the XIV century are described, specially the awe the characters express about them. It makes them feel so fresh.

I had heard of all the scientists named in the OP, but I didn't know all the details of what they had done.

Mariangel wrote: "I like the way the newest scientific discoveries of the XIV century are described, specially the awe the characters express about them. It makes them feel so fresh."

I totally agree with Mari Angel for me the the centuries 11th, 12th, and 13th are the most happy of the history of the mankind we can compare with the Roman Empire in the 2th century as we saw when we discussed the Seal of Eolus of the Professor Manuel Alfonseca. It is really curious that the plague would provoke the same effect although the Roman Empire started his decline and the European Middle Age was much better than the muslim science and this produced in the 14th century despite Murat II, Mehmet II, Selim I, and Suleyman the turkish power was not enough to avoid the development of the science in Europe and this take off continued in the 14 th century for this reason are totally unfair the critics of the Renassaince Philosophers.

I had not heard of all the scientists mentioned in the OP, and, like Mariangel, liked the way the author dealt with then-current scientific developments.

I was a bit annoyed by anachronisms like calling hidden mikes "bugs."

Jill wrote: "I was a bit annoyed by anachronisms like calling hidden mikes "bugs.""

This was probably a joke of the author, as the owners of the "bugs" were insect-like beings.

It seems that Michael Flynn for the scientific part was inspired by this book "The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts" by Edward Grant/book/show/1... . I'm taking notes from the book, so I can post them tomorrow, and I apologize if I was unpleasant the last week. I promise it will not happen again.
I like how Flynn makes his protagonist Dietrich use reason, and common sense to get to things, which a priori seem unattainable for the common man of the Middle Ages. Admittedly, I would have been more comfortable, if I had used Thomistic reason as G.K. Chesterton's Father Brown does, or what Neotomist Ralph McInnerny does with his detective Father Dowling /series/6786..., which is the American version of Father Brown.

Something has left me frozen, such as the bones found in the cathedral of Vienna, which the blacksmith believes, which is a dragon, and which according to Dietrich would be fossils turned into stone, collecting the opinion of St. Albert the Great (who by the way is the Patron of chemists at the University. It was the equivalent of Aristotle in the Middle Ages in matters of botany, and biology. To arrive at a similar approach we have to go back to the seventeenth century to the deductions of Steno. A Danish scientist, who converted to Catholicism, and became a bishop, and who was admired by Leibniz. The digression about the dragons, and their bones reminded me of Athanasius Kircher. As long as, and when what Flynn says is true.
This book was the answer to my prayers. You know that I am an honorary collaborator of the subject of History of Medicine, and my Boss Dr. Río Hortega, and I have very different approaches. He is an admirer of the Greek world, and of the Renaissance, and is very critical of the Middle Ages, and the Baroque, which are the periods that I defend. I knew that view is unfair, but I found no way to prove otherwise until this book appeared. Anyway, my Boss is more and more open, and is no longer so critical of the Middle Ages.
I am pointing out everything I am reading, which I find of interest, to contextualize it, and clarify it. I'll post it in a few days, maybe tomorrow.

Manuel wrote: "Jill wrote: "I was a bit annoyed by anachronisms like calling hidden mikes "bugs.""

This was probably a joke of the author, as the owners of the "bugs" were insect-like beings."

Don't they even say that the mikes are shaped like tiny insects?

Yes. But having places "bugged" that way is a very 20th century thing, as is the explanation of computer pathways as off/on.

Fonch wrote: "It seems that Michael Flynn for the scientific part was inspired by this book "The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts" by Edw..."

Fonch, I found Grant's work to be invaluable for the writing of the fifth chapter of my own book. In that chapter, I try to show that medieval Christendom created the perfect cultural environment for the invention of the scientific method as we know it. A delicate balance between faith and science was needed; the open-mindedness of the Church, combined with the insights into the universe provided by her theology, made for the perfect combination. Science as we know it, as a result, was born in that specific cultural matrix.

Anyway, pardon me if I quote a passage from my book, in case it is of interest:

Christianity began its conquest of minds and hearts in the midst of a pagan Roman Empire at the height of its power. From the start, Christian thinkers could have looked upon all secular learning as rubbish and given a cultish cast to Christianity, wherein faith would be blind, totally divorced from reason.
Though there were a few impulses in that direction among the early Fathers, that is not what happened. Rather, Greek philosophy and science were seen as a means of supporting faith. They were assigned the picturesque role of being ‘handmaidens of theology�.i

Grant believes that Christianity’s peaceful co-existence with secular learning, from its beginnings, might be due to its slow spread throughout the Roman Empire.ii The slow development would force Christians to assimilate the influences of their milieu, to a certain degree, rather than impose their views unilaterally upon others, as Islam would do when it arose and spread like wildfire.

While that is a partial explanation, Jaki provides a deeper reason in his The Savior of Science.iii The new Christian faith held that a transcendent God created the universe and took on a human nature at a certain point in human history. Believing this, Christians also had to believe there was an intimate connection between the natural and supernatural orders, between creation and Creator, earth and heaven, reason and faith. Christians could not feel threatened by the natural order or knowledge of that order, because God Himself was at the source of that order, and God Himself had entered that order in Jesus Christ.

If a person believes that there is one God, that He is good, and that He is the source of all that is, then he cannot attack anything in the natural order without implicitly attacking his own belief that it comes from God. Nothing could incarnate this principle in Christian minds like the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, which they believe occurred by the union of a human nature and a divine nature in a single divine person.

Thus, when we come to the Middle Ages, we find Church and State working closely together to create an intellectual context ‘with the conditions that made it feasible to pursue science and natural philosophy on a permanent basis�.iv Grant reduces those conditions for the flourishing of science in a religious society to three:v
1. Science is recognised as independent.
2. Science is protected by the secular state.
3. Science is favourably regarded by religious authorities.

All of these conditions, he says, obtained in the medieval Christian state:
"In late medieval Latin Christendom the third condition was clearly in effect. Because the Church looked with favour on science, secular authorities also adopted a beneficent approach toward it � they had no reason to oppose science and natural philosophy. Indeed, they found many occasions to favour the disciplines. Because the second and third conditions were fulfilled, the first was almost met as well during the late Middle Ages."vi

In Grant’s eyes, then, the Church’s favourable regard toward science enabled it to be protected by the State and be pursued in independence from theology. One reason churchmen were happy for science to be studied alongside theology is that they themselves were often both theologians and natural philosophers. Most of them
"believed that natural philosophy was essential for a proper elucidation of theology � Indeed, some of the most noteworthy accomplishments in science and mathematics during the Middle Ages came from theologians."vii

Because reason and faith dwelt in such harmony, medieval scientists had a great freedom of inquiry in pursuing knowledge of the natural world:
"Although theology was always a potential obstacle to the study of natural philosophy, theologians themselves offered little opposition to the discipline, largely because they were too heavily involved in it."viii

This statement may seem startling to those who know something of the conflicts between religion and science in the past 500 years. Certain literal interpretations of the Bible have often been used to contradict the legitimate findings of empirical science. In medieval Christendom, however, the Bible did not pose any obstacle to scientific pursuits. The reason lies in Catholicism’s relationship to its sacred text.

Paul wrote: "This statement may seem startling to those who know something of the conflicts between religion and science in the past 500 years."

Paul, there wasn't a conflict between religion and science in the past 500 years. That conflict is a 19th century invention. I wrote about it in this recent post in my blog:

Paul wrote: "Fonch wrote: "It seems that Michael Flynn for the scientific part was inspired by this book "The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Co..."

Manuel wrote: "Paul wrote: "This statement may seem startling to those who know something of the conflicts between religion and science in the past 500 years."

Paul, there wasn't a conflict between religion and ..."

Hello Father Robinson. When I found out that Michael Flynn had been inspired by this book I wanted to take a look at it, and one of the things that made me recommend it to my friend Professor Manuel Alfonseca was the fact that you had rated it with five stars. I think it could be a very useful book the pity is that it is not in Spanish. In that I do agree with Miquel Barceló (I say this because of a review I wrote about "Warbreaker" by Brandon Sanderson), that in Spain there is a habit of preferring bad books by well-known authors, than good books, and that's how it goes. Recently Sandra E. Miesel recommended a book about the Reformation, when we were discussing "Characters of the Reformation".

Partly that's why I wanted this book to be chosen, to revalue medieval thought, and science, because still, and especially in my country there are many people, who are hostile to the Middle Ages, and the Baroque, and instead idolize the ancient Greeks, the Muslims, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment. I already mentioned the case of my Boss. When I believe, that the Renaissance could not have been carried out without the scholastic philosophers St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, Duns Scotus, Jean Buridan, Oresme, or the very interesting Nicholas of Cusa.

I agree with Professor Alfonseca present here that mourning was favored in the nineteenth century. Although it is possible that Father Robinson thinks like me, that the destruction of the scholastic model propitiated by nominalists, by Ockham of which I have spoken in another section of the discussion, and especially by Martin Luther (in fact part of the rejection of heliocentrism was due to the fact that Luther and his disciples previously rejected it), and Catholics are infected with this. Perhaps and it is possible that Father Robinson wanted to say that the destruction of scholasticism by Descartes, carrying out the goal of William Ockham, and the efforts of Hobbes, Locke, and other Protestants were the breeding ground that led to that hostile, and mistaken vision that was held in the nineteenth century of religion, as an enemy of science.

Manuel wrote: "Jill wrote: "I was a bit annoyed by anachronisms like calling hidden mikes "bugs.""

This was probably a joke of the author, as the owners of the "bugs" were insect-like beings."

And I think I recall his description of them looking like bugs - but with the kind of miniaturization we see in our current level of technology, if I can borrow a theme from another question, I would expect the aliens to have listening devices that couldn't be found by those from the 14th century.

Manuel wrote: "Paul wrote: "This statement may seem startling to those who know something of the conflicts between religion and science in the past 500 years."

Paul, there wasn't a conflict between religion and ..."

In these cases, Manuel, it is important to understand the statements in the sense in which they are intended. I totally agree that there has not been, in point of fact, a conflict between religion and science in the past 500 years. In other words, I don't think that religion has been an impediment to science in any real sense.

There has, however, been an immense campaign to instrumentalize science for the purpose of tearing down religion. This has led believers to distrust science and even attack science. This has been especially true in my own United States, where Protestant fundamentalists effectively destroy scientific endeavor by claiming that God created everything in the universe fully-formed 6000 years ago.

To this day, there is a war between new atheists claiming that science shows that the "God hypothesis" is unneeded and Protestants claiming that the Bible shows that most of modern science is wrong.

I doubt you would disagree with these statements.

Paul wrote: "I doubt you would disagree with these statements."

I don't.

I do not think that the science was hostile to the religion. The problem is that we are living a period hostile to the religion This is for the mankind has had a very destructive tide with agressive struggles to the religion. 50-60 of the previous century appeared modern movements Who speeds the hatred for the religion the sexual Revolution, the school of Frankfurt, May 68, right materialistic theories. I think that the Professor is right when he said when some scientist aracks the religion they do not make science they make philosophy and bad because they do not know It.

Fonch wrote: "Paul wrote: "Fonch wrote: "It seems that Michael Flynn for the scientific part was inspired by this book "The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and In..."

Fonch, I think that we can all agree that there can never be any conflict between true religion and true science. The reason for this is that both the supernatural order and the natural order have the same origin: God. And since God does all things with order, harmony and wisdom, there will never be a conflict between anything that truly exists in the supernatural order and truly exists in the natural order.

At the same time, there are certain religions that conflict with proper science, and there are certain scientific methodologies that conflict with religion. You give a great example of this when you mention Luther and his adoption of Ockham's nominalism.

Let me just explain how the religion that Luther invented, as a religious system, destroys religion. We all know that the Luther's first principle was to reject the authority of the Church to guide believers in the interpretation of the Bible. For him, the Bible is to be interpreted by individuals under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

But this means that the Bible is meant by God to be accessible to everyone and so be easily interpreted. This in turn tends to make the simplest, most literal sense to be the best interpretation. The interpretation of the Bible is naturally over-simplified. And when you are over-emphasizing the Bible, making it the sole rule of faith, then you will likely trust your over-simplified interpretation of it over your own reason.

It is not surprising that Luther attacked human reason quite openly, ridiculing it, calling it names and so on. This is what he had to do in order to push believers to leave reason out of the realm of faith. It was also necessary because some of the beliefs he proposed conflicted with reason.

This theology produces an idea of God as someone who endows humans with the wonderful gift of reason, but then asks them to suppress that gift when they become believers. For Luther, this suppression of our highest gift is a homage that we give to God. We believe in supernatural truths against our own reason, for the glory of God.

This is the sort of God who does everything Himself, not wanting to give to His creatures much scope for secondary causality. He determines absolutely our damnation or salvation, He determines our belief without our reason having any part in that belief, He does all of the work on the Cross without us being able to merit our salvation. And so on.

This theology matches naturally with the philosophy of nominalism, which holds that the human mind is not able to know the natures of things and so is not able to infer conclusively that this or that thing is causally operative in a given situation. Is the heat really coming from the fire? Well, only if fire has a nature that produces heat. But if I don't know the nature of fire, or the nature of anything else, then I cannot say for sure that the fire is causing the heat.

This philosophy of nominalism destroys scientific endeavor, because science is precisely directed to inferring causes from effects.

In short, Luther's theology and God-idea naturally leads to embracing a nominalist philosophy and shutting down scientific endeavor. So, his religion truly is in conflict with science, at least when it is taken to its logical conclusions (as Luther himself took it). Obviously, there are many Protestants who do not take it in that direction.

But, the fact is that there has been a real conflict between religion and science since the Western world has become Protestantized. Only when Catholic theology and realist philosophy take over the Western world once more (an eventuality we should fervently pray for) will religion and science be able to co-exist in harmony.

I agree, and despite the great advances achieved, in many cases stealing them from other previous cultures we have the case of Islam. In this book, which I read advised by the publisher Citadel, and written by a convert to Christianity (unfortunately Qureshi could not become a Catholic, because he died too young), Seeking Allah, Finding Jesus: A Devout Muslim Encounters Christianityby Nabeel Qureshi, /book/show/1... but in this book. I think, what overwhelmed me the most. Apart from Muhammad's revenge against his opponents, it is something very similar to what he has said. That in this case all knowledge must be contained in the scriptures in this case in the Qur'an, otherwise it is directly alluded to a dark part, and if not, it works it is labeled as something perverse not wanted by God, and that must be combated. As my friend the Professor explained in the book "Everything is number" /book/show/4... this irruption of nominalism would already begin with Rosclino de Compiegne, would continue with Siger de Bravante (perhaps this can be the father of relativism), who was defeated by St. Thomas Aquinas. But except for the attack on scholastics. I don't think they're the same. I believe that Ockham does not feed a Luther who rejected all Greek culture, to whom William of Ockham gives air is a Descartes who despite being Catholic. Belloc I think was very right when I talk about the danger of Cartesianism, and Pascal's Jansenism (this let's not forget exploited by the Enlightenment, to attack the Infamous as Voltaire would say). Who is going to serve as food is not Protestantism, only a liberal vision of Protestantism, or Calvinism understand Hobbes (let us remember that it ends with the divine connection of kings. Let us not confuse that as the representative King of God on Earth, which is what the absolutism of Filmer, and Bossuet, was going to be based on), Hobbes is more diabolical, because he is going to create the Totalitarian State, where he is going to give all the power to the ruler, who can do absolutely everything without any limit of religious scruple, or moral (there is the serious thing. It is Machiavellian thought led to the ultimate consequences.) Instead, Locke will be the defender of parliamentarism, and the defense of majorities, against the common good. The majority is right, and what the parliaments say is sacred, and must be obeyed, even if it is a great immorality. It should not be forgotten that it is Locke and his anti-Catholicism that will feed the hatred for the Catholic religion in the French enlightenment Montesquieu, Diderot, Voltaire, and let us not forget that the encyclopedists were used, to cover the adultery of King Louis XV with the Pompadour as Ramiro de Maeztu brilliantly assured in his book on Hispanicity /book/show/5... . That is where I see all the evils, and the Reformation would not have happened, if the nefarious Wycliffe had not previously existed in England. Instead of being fought he was protected by Edward III, and John of Ghent who needed him to oppose the English clergy. But without him, and without Jan Hus there would have been no Luther, who would continue his evil, demonic legacy. Luther's and Calvin's problem is that they turn religion into oppressive, suffocating, and unattractive. Apart from his fatalistic vision. Predestination, which is the father of determinism, is the cruelest thing that can exist, because it recognizes neither repentance nor is it compassionate to the sinner. One is already saved, or condemned no. I am not surprised that most atheists come from the Anglo-Saxon world, because what the Reformation does is destroy all kinds of religious sediment. She is so determined to oppose Rome that in the end what she leads to is to give up the practice of religion. If in the end the discourse crystallizes in what Locke thinks of all religions, they are good except Catholicism, and atheism. It was not difficult to turn this around, and say that everything is good, and legitimate except Christianity. Hence Christianity has always opposed science according to the worldview of this modern world that has been created. That is why there are the Dawkins, the Hitchens, the Harrises, the Denetts, the Pullmans, the Compte Sponville, Onfray, and that countries like the Czech Republic, or Iceland are already recognized as atheists. That is why I opposed the comment, which certain liberal Catholics say, that we had to liberalize the Church more, and be more sympathetic to Luther, who after all was fighting against abuse, and the worldliness of the Church. I will say a blasphemy I believe, that the crisis we are suffering is due to the church being worldly, and has wanted to be good with the world. What he has to do is that it is the Church that moves the world, and not the world to the Church, as is currently happening, and for this instead of falling into the current isms feminism, environmentalism, or pagan cults like the Pacha Mama, what he must do is put God at the Center, and reject the ideologies of both the right and the left that have led him to his current situation. That is achieved by putting God back at the center, correcting worldly behaviors as was done in the eleventh century. That is the real reform, and not that of Luther, Calvin, or the fat man and his falsely virgin daughter (Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I). If we want to return to the Reformation, the authentic Reformation is that of Santa Brígida, Santa Catalina de Siena, San Bernardino, Cisneros, San Felipe Neri, Cayetano de Thiene, San Ignacio de Loyola, Santa Teresa de Jesús, San Pedro Canisio, San Juan de la Cruz among others. That is why books like this are important to dismantle the lies that have been told about the Middle Ages. If the Treaty of Westphalia had not triumphed, which did not comment on Protestants or Catholics, but on the French secularists, and had won the Catholic faith, I very possibly believe that we would not have had the pavana society of Keith Roberts /book/show/6... or Ruled Britannia of Turtledove /book/show/1... , but we would have had a society like the one described by Robert Hugh Benson in the Dawn of all /book/show/2... Having followed this path marked by Westphalia we are now on our way to the Lord of the world, however if there is an awakening, and an authentic change in the Church, and fighting against the predominance of the world over the Church, perhaps its arrival can be delayed for some time. It will be up to Catholics, and Divine Providence, to alter the current evolution of history. There is still time, although less and less. But that may amount to the Church being persecuted again, and fought again.

I found the author's historical note at the end fascinating, that what we think of as the humanities weren't studied in these times, rather everyone studied "natural philosophy," close to what we'd call science!

Jill wrote: "I found the author's historical note at the end fascinating, that what we think of as the humanities weren't studied in these times, rather everyone studied "natural philosophy," close to what we'd call science"

Of course, by "everybody" you mean "everybody who studied," which was a small minority :-)