Live data from Hacker News

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

quora.com

51–60 of 69 posts

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

#51
post #20
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…

I mean, we actually know that not only was there pitifully little scientific advancement during that period (especially as you point out in the first half), but that science and technology regressed massively and entire fields were completely forgotten. For example, there was a gap of over a thousand years before anybody could build large domes again, and even then it had to be completely reinvented.

Like a few commenters here, you're confusing the dark ages and the middle ages. You can quibble over semantics and say that the middle ages includes the dark ages, but that obscures the point of the original post.

The standard narrative of Western intellectual progress looks like this:

~300BC to ~400AD: classical civilisation, high intellectual culture

~400AD to ~1500AD: Europe under the dominion of the Church, science and reason suppressed

~1500AD: bam, Renaissance

~1700AD: bam, Enlightenment

~1700AD - present: humanity freed from the yoke of religion, knowledge flowers again.

The revisionist view is as follows:

~300BC to ~400AD: classical civilisation, high intellectual culture

~400AD to ~1000AD: Europe in the dark ages due to barbarian invasions, underpopulated and poor, classical tradition barely kept alive in monasteries

~1000AD to ~1400AD: Europe begins to get wealthier, knowledge flowers in Church-sponsored universities

~1600AD: bam, Protestant Reformation

~1600AD - present: science builds on knowledge and philosophy developed by Catholic church, but Protestant anti-Catholic propaganda creates the false narrative of Church suppression of knowledge.

I don't know why this perspective is hitting the zeitgeist now, but one reason might be that the internet enables niche communities to share such ideas.

One such group is Catholics - here's a Catholic blogger explaining exactly how the heliocentrism vs geocentrism debate played out: http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...

Another group are environmentalists - here's an interesting blogger writing about how classical knowledge was preserved through the dark ages: http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com.au/2010/06/merlins-ti...

And a final group are the reactionaries, a group who see the modern ideals of progress as a myth - here's a good starting point on the idea that modern 'progressive' ideas are largely derived from Protestantism: http://unqualifiedreservations.wordpress.com/2007/09/26/how-...

Anyone who's interested and has the free time, please do dig around those blogs - you may realise, as I did, that the 21st century is quite an intellectually narrow and ignorant time.

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

#53
post #44
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…

Your point about the domes is quite interesting. Can you imagine what it was like to be a citizen of Rome in the year 800, looking at a dome that is hundreds of years old and having no idea how people could possibly do that. I can't think of a modern analogue. It would be like finding the monolith from 2001 on the moon.

> I can't think of a modern analogue.

There are plenty.

Ironically, building a medieval cathedral is one of those analogues. Yes, we can build a cathedral with modern equipment, but we don't know how much of it was done without it. Much of the knowledge was considered too commonplace to be worth writing down.

A modern one ... how about a Saturn V rocket. We no longer have the steel mills with big enough tooling in order to actually build such a mammoth beast. We would have to reinvent much of that tooling in order to do it again.

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

#54
post #4

I 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

You'd probably enjoy Anathem by Neil Stephenson in that case.

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

#55
post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they key to the article isn't the years covered but the fact that the Church wasn't suppressing knowledge which many people have an irrational inability to recognize.

The church wasn't suppressing ancient knowledge for the most part, but it wasn't exactly doing much to produce new knowledge, either. That didn't really get going (in Europe) until the Renaissance and Scientific Revolution, although there was some progress in the late Middle Ages as the article points out. For the most part, the article is about preserving and recovering old knowledge. That the Renaissance had some p…

Albertus Magnus, Witelo, Robert Grosseteste (inventor of the scientific method), Roger Bacon, Petrus Peregrinus, William of Ockham: obviously these guys never existed, and the foundation of the Universities in the Cathedral towns never happened.

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

#56
post #20
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 was another "Dark Ages" period in 1200BC [1] when dome building was again forgotten for 1400 years although it was quite usual in tomb building [2]. During that dark ages 500 year period most cities near the Mediterranean were destroyed, and it is attributed to the "Sea Peoples" [3]. Population in eastern mediterranean was reduced to 1/9 of its previous numbers and commerce that numbered thousands of ship transports ceased.

One can only imagine were we would be, if we had not forgotten printed type by 2500BC[4] or small gear mechanisms by 100 BC [5]

Non "Dark-ages" years are less than the "dark ages" years in recorded history, we just like to think that civilization improves over time.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Bronze_Age_collapse [2] http://traveltoeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/wpid- [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Peoples Photo-Apr-1-2013-151-PM.jpg [4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaistos_Disc [5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

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

#57
The middle ages were a period of great turmoil in Europe, so even if there were scientific, literary or artistic advances they could easily have been destroyed. We only know what we know from stuff that has survived the turmoil and the following thousand or so years.

Also, I'm very surprised the quora article did not even mention the plague and the effect it had in those days.

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

#58
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.

And the article doesn't even mention Fibonacci or Al-Kashi.

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

#59
post #26

I'm by no means a medieval scholar. But this doesn't mesh at all with the information in the"The Swerve" by Stephen Greenblatt (a national book award winner). The texts of the pagans were not preserved because they were revered but because it was the duty of a monk to know how to write. To learn how to write, you have to write. Since very little new work was being created, old work was copied by rote.

>Since very little new work was being created, old work was copied by rote. //

This argument appears thin - there would surely be enough text in the Holy Bible and the epistles and other writings of the early Church (eg Eusebius) for the monks to write extensively without needing any other material.

Post reply on HN