Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
1–10 of 69 posts
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#2It's an understandable mistake, since we tend to view history with a sort of flattening perspective; the recent past is spread out before us in sparkling detail, then fields marching away we spy the industrial revolution, the enlightenment, the renaissance — but beyond that, as records are fewer and the major changes coming at longer intervals, history essentially disappears beyond the curvature of the landscape, and the horizon marks the moment when our understanding lapses, and time compresses, robbing centuries of their weight and duration. Beyond that are the rolling hills of the late roman empire and the stern peaks of the classical era, clearly visible but isolated.
This also reflects a very Western-centric point of view, for a great deal of reasons; the massive changes and wars wrought in the east, as Creasy writes, "appear before us through the twilight of primaeval history, dim and indistinct, but massive and majestic, like mountains in the early dawn." It doesn't quite tally with my other metaphor, but feels true nonetheless.
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#3That is a terrific answer. Our understanding of history and especially the 'rewriting of history' never ceases to amaze me.
I read a history of Christianity book several years ago, and found it fascinating and inspiring.
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#4I had my opinion of the christian church dramatically overhauled a few years ago, paradoxically by a great scifi novel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#5Indeed, maybe there was no scientific dark age in the Middle ages, at least not globally, but It was a dark age in Europe, knowledge was lost, the (roman) world economy collapsed and entirely disappeared, economic throughput and population would not recover until the industrial revolution[1]. The dark age ended when the last remaining of the ancient Roman world was forcibly dispersed from Constantinople, most of it found a safe harbor in Italian cities that would become the center of the Renaissance.[2]
[1] Ward-Perkins, Bryan. The Fall of Rome And the End of Civilization
[2] Brownworth, Lars. Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#6Indeed, maybe there was no scientific dark age in the Middle ages, at least not globally, but It was a dark age in Europe, knowledge was lost, the (roman) world economy collapsed and entirely disappeared, economic throughput and population would not recover until the industrial revolution[1]. The dark age ended when the last remaining of the ancient Roman world was forcibly dispersed from Constantinople, most of it f…
[deleted]
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#7There are no scientific advances in Western Europe during the early Middle Ages, i.e. between 500AD to 1000AD, just a 'mere' 500+ years...
This is actually acknowledged by the writer of the article.
Things get somewhat better in the 2nd part of the Middle Ages leading to the Renaissance. So roughly 1000AD-1500AD. The earliest references from the author are in 12th century.
Such an intellectually dishonest title.
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#8Indeed, maybe there was no scientific dark age in the Middle ages, at least not globally, but It was a dark age in Europe, knowledge was lost, the (roman) world economy collapsed and entirely disappeared, economic throughput and population would not recover until the industrial revolution[1]. The dark age ended when the last remaining of the ancient Roman world was forcibly dispersed from Constantinople, most of it f…
[deleted]
I did, I just disagree that we can discard a dark age just because some Universities were founded as soon as the eleventh century, Europe literacy levels wouldn't match the Roman ones until the 19th century. Also the Muslim world invented the scientific method centuries before the western world did. (Jābir ibn Hayyān)
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#9There are no scientific advances in Western Europe during the early Middle Ages, i.e. between 500AD to 1000AD, just a 'mere' 500+ years... This is actually acknowledged by the writer of the article. Things get somewhat better in the 2nd part of the Middle Ages leading to the Renaissance. So roughly 1000AD-1500AD. The earliest references from the author are in 12th century. Such an intellectually dishonest title.
The article answers a question about the middle ages. No dishonesty there.
The LINK title starts with "Middle Ages". The author points out that while the Dark Ages (500-1000) were indeed dark, the Middle Ages weren't, and that the Church, far from suppressing early scientific investigation nurtured it. If the link title omitted the first two words it might be accused of dishonestly, but since it does not, it's your reading comprehension that's the problem.
Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?
#10I had my opinion of the christian church dramatically overhauled a few years ago, paradoxically by a great scifi novel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Canticle_for_Leibowitz
Funny, I had the opposite reaction when reading A Canticle for Leibowitz. There's one scene near the end where a refugee mother and baby are dying. They are crippled, burned, and suffering radiation poisoning. Both are in great pain, and the mother wants euthanasia for herself and her baby. A priest first tries (and almost succeeds) to talk her out of it. He then resorts to force, trying to kidnap the baby and eventually punching a doctor. When stymied by police, he is let off with a warning instead of being jailed.
I'm pretty sure that scene was supposed to make the reader feel sympathetic towards the priest. Instead, I felt disappointment toward the author.
The preservation of knowledge across civilizational collapses was neat, and the writing was good, but I would have enjoyed the story more if it had been about a less dogmatic order.