Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

quora.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 69 posts

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#31

Post by graeme »

bane wrote: post #20
jackjeff wrote: post #7

There 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.

There's a weird kind of historic revisionism that's been going on the last couple years regarding the Medieval period...the "things weren't all that bad" and "the notion that nothing happened is just a myth". Is it real? Are we just now learning about advanced and invention that happened during this period and were previously ignoring/ignorant of? Maybe. But I suspect something else is at play here, I'm just not sure…

There may or may not be a new revisionism, but the idea has been around a while. I first remember coming across this idea in Timeline by Michael Crichton:

http://www.amazon.com/Timeline-Michael-Crichton/dp/034541762...

And I doubt he came up with the idea. I also think I heard that this debate has been going on in medieval scholarship for a while.

That said, the debate is unlikely to be a strawman that glosses over the very real collapse in certain types of knowledge. I doubt the scholarly debate explains whatever is currently happening on the popular level.

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#33

Post by a8da6b0c91d »

javajosh wrote: post #27
bane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a weird kind of historic revisionism that's been going on the last couple years regarding the Medieval period...the "things weren't all that bad" and "the notion that nothing happened is just a myth". Is it real? Are we just now learning about advanced and invention that happened during this period and were previously ignoring/ignorant of? Maybe. But I suspect something else is at play here, I'm just not sure…

I have witnessed the same change in the zeitgeist, and also wondered about it's source. My hypothesis is that it's rooted in the trend toward environmental sustainability, local and human-powered production (e.g. hand-made things from locally acquired materials). It seems reasonable to me to believe that life wasn't that bad even for a Christian peasant, assuming: good health, good weather, no plague, no war (to be c…

The Roman empire was a disaster for most people. It ran on slave labor and high taxes. The early middle ages was a period where organizations scaled back to what was feasible without mass slavery. This involved a lot less literate types in urban centers. So to a modern urbanite it looks like things got worse after the empire, what with the decline of literacy and nice buildings. In reality, health and welfare improved.

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#34

Post by sbmassey »

jackjeff wrote: post #7

There 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.

I didn't read the article yet, but the Carolingian Renaissance was smack in the middle of that period, and was pretty culturally fertile, with pipe organs, new architecture, the invention of lower case Latin script, and so forth.

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#35

Post by dang »

jackjeff wrote: post #7

There 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.

> Such an intellectually dishonest title

We changed the title to that of the page itself, which obviously doesn't make the claim you're objecting to. Surprised we didn't do it earlier.

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#36

Post by mjmahone17 »

javajosh wrote: post #27
bane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a weird kind of historic revisionism that's been going on the last couple years regarding the Medieval period...the "things weren't all that bad" and "the notion that nothing happened is just a myth". Is it real? Are we just now learning about advanced and invention that happened during this period and were previously ignoring/ignorant of? Maybe. But I suspect something else is at play here, I'm just not sure…

I have witnessed the same change in the zeitgeist, and also wondered about it's source. My hypothesis is that it's rooted in the trend toward environmental sustainability, local and human-powered production (e.g. hand-made things from locally acquired materials). It seems reasonable to me to believe that life wasn't that bad even for a Christian peasant, assuming: good health, good weather, no plague, no war (to be c…

The reason Feudalism came about was because it was a good deal for the average bloke. You weren't constantly threatened by slavery, you were mostly protected from raiding, etc. by your landlord, and you only had to work on someone else's land (in the beginning) 1 or 2 days a week. The reason we hear about it being so awful is because we hear about the last legs of Feudalism: when peasants were expected to work 8+ days a week (children counted for a half day, so this was actually possible) on the lord's land, and because of a rise in population had their labor devalued, and the average acreage for individual plots reduced.

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#37

Post by kjs3 »

graeme wrote: post #31
bane wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a weird kind of historic revisionism that's been going on the last couple years regarding the Medieval period...the "things weren't all that bad" and "the notion that nothing happened is just a myth". Is it real? Are we just now learning about advanced and invention that happened during this period and were previously ignoring/ignorant of? Maybe. But I suspect something else is at play here, I'm just not sure…

There may or may not be a new revisionism, but the idea has been around a while. I first remember coming across this idea in Timeline by Michael Crichton: http://www.amazon.com/Timeline-Michael-Crichton/dp/034541762... And I doubt he came up with the idea. I also think I heard that this debate has been going on in medieval scholarship for a while. That said, the debate is unlikely to be a strawman that glosses over t…

Crichton is a really bad person to count on as a paragon of science reporting beyond being a journeyman doctor. He's a climate change denier, among other anti-science stances. And if you disagree with him, he might put you in a book, using your name and profession, but making you a child molester.

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#38

Post by selimthegrim »

benbreen wrote: post #25
torrance wrote: post #21

Is this question implicitly restricting itself to European Middle ages? If not, surely it's worth mentioning the scientific advances in the Islamic Golden Ages? [1] As I understand it, these were so important that in Europe if you wanted to keep apace of scientific advances, many undertook to learn to read Arabic. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science_in_the_medieval_Islamic...

This is a cogent question and one that historians of science are currently debating. There's been a lot of debate in my own field (early modern history) about whether we can speak of such things as "early modern Japan," "early modern India" or indeed an "early modern world," or whether we should restrict the term to Europe. I personally vote for the former on the basis of the globalization that had been occurring sin…

If you read George Steiner on Needham, it's interesting to see that he ended up identifying with China to a point that he even parroted their line in the Vietnam War uncritically.

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#39

Post by vacri »

jackjeff wrote: post #14
Tloewald wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

The "Middle Ages" refers to the period starting with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire and ending with the discovery of America. So 5th to 15th century. So conveniently redefining Middle Ages to start in the 12th century to make a point is not particularly honest. There was no scientific progress for more than half of the period commonly known as "Middle Ages" in Western Europe. That's a fact not disputed by t…

Speaking of 'not particularly honest', how about 'There are no scientific advances in Western Europe during the early Middle Ages, i.e. between 500AD to 1000AD"? It's not even a couched statement allowing a little leeway.

Re: Why did science make little real progress in Europe in the Middle Ages?

#40

Post by brandonmenc »

kjs3 wrote: post #37
graeme wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There may or may not be a new revisionism, but the idea has been around a while. I first remember coming across this idea in Timeline by Michael Crichton: http://www.amazon.com/Timeline-Michael-Crichton/dp/034541762... And I doubt he came up with the idea. I also think I heard that this debate has been going on in medieval scholarship for a while. That said, the debate is unlikely to be a strawman that glosses over t…

Crichton is a really bad person to count on as a paragon of science reporting beyond being a journeyman doctor. He's a climate change denier, among other anti-science stances. And if you disagree with him, he might put you in a book, using your name and profession, but making you a child molester.

What are some of his other anti-science stances? (genuinely curious)
Post reply on HN