G'day. I looked around the forum, and I've done a lot of googling on this but I want others to sound out on this.


Sociologist Rodney Stark defines science in a (at least to me), a really narrow way. Which then helps to make the claim that Science is a Judaeo-Christian invention.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ide...th_and_reason/

So the ancient Greeks, Romans, Muslims, and heck, the Early Egyptians didn't actually do any "science", either.Sure

, we call people like Eratosthenes, Pythagoras, Aristillus, etc, "natural philosophers", but my position has been that science traces it's roots back way before Bacon. Surely we can accept that some of these guys, who observed and measured, did the earliest science, and we inherit that? Bacon may have codified a few things, but as Feynman says, "William Harvey, said that what Bacon said science was, was the science that a lord-chancellor would do."

Fyneman gave this lecture "what is science", to science teachers, back in 1966, and he doesn't give a short two sentence summation of what it is:
http://www.fotuva.org/feynman/what_is_science.html

However, the narrow definition Stark gives, leads to this:

http://www.konig.org/wc49.htm

and worse, "answers in Genesis" claims science was "invented" by Judaeo-Christians.

Is this a wedge claim that Creationists are using to say, "Well, since we invented it, we are merely carrying on the tradition, and ID is science"

I've googled definitions of science, and 99% of them disagree with Starks definition (which is good), and are far broader, (which is even better).

Secondly, When do we define "science" as beginning, and who, if anyone, "invented it"

Thirdly, is it a Judao-Christian "invention"

I'm concerned that narrowing the definition of what is science is a dangerous move.

I would say that a claim that the Greeks didn't do science is quite valid, as they didn't have others test their hypotheses with experiments.
Science don't really happen until you have more than one person working on a problem, which by historical accident doesn't happen until we get to the judaeo-christian times.

I've seen the argument that monotheism is the trigger for science, since it's not until you have only one god you have a mindset that expects a single result of an action, because a polytheist wouldn't be surprised if something didn't go as expected since that could just be that a different god did it this time.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

I've come to the conclusion that religion was the cradle of science and philosophy was its nurse. Religion having stoneage beginnings, to today. Philosophy from the times of city states, to today.

So, I support your opinion. It's guys like the ones you write about that give Judaeo-Christian people a bad name. That's why I chirpped up and pitched in my two cents worth. We're not all like that.

I think that the start of science remains debateable. Imo, when people start obdjectively viewing commerce, crafts, arts, and start tabulating expenses, goods, components of metullargy and costumes needed for an act; then the studies of economics, production, science and dramas has started. However, that's not really germain, to your thread.

However, there's some scientists who give the rest of you a bad name, by bashing religion and scorning philosophy. Shame on them. They should respect their elders: religion and philosophy.

In closing, with the advent of city states, only priests and nobles had time to study stars, steam nor anything else. And early city states were built in Ur, India, and China before Moses received the Commandments. Maybe when Abram migrated from Ur to Canaan was before Judeo-Christian influence as well as when monotheism was introduced to Egypt, before Joseph brought monotheism in, again. All this before the Exodus, monotheism introduced to Egypt. I deem the Exodus as the start of Judeo-Christianity. Just my two cents worth.

I'm submitting that crafts like metullargy, included enough tabulation of components for a good grade of bronze; and enough copying by spies from other kingdoms to gain a good bronze, to stand as a strong start for science.

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

Thanks guys.
Salty: I'm in the same frame of mind as you. Crusaders of either side do no one any good.

I'm reluctant however to assume that no-one in ancient Greece, for instance, didn't test the hypothesis and findings of others. They were just as argumentative and ready to trip each other up as we are :-)

I'm prepared to bet that there were people competing against Archimedes, for instance.

Of course, we have no way of knowing, so the point is moot.

If only the Library at Alexandria hadn't been burned :-)

The thesis that the Judeao-Christian world view was very influential in the rise of modern science (science as we know it) was first advanced by Robert Merton in 1938. It has been elaborated by many other historians of science, including Reitjer Hooykaas, Stanley Jaki, Michael Foster, and Robert Russell, to name just a few from the top of my head. It is largely non-controversial amongst historians of science, although still surprising to many people at at popular level.

Jon

You'd be amazed. They didn't even necessarily check their own findings.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

There were people competing with him on various subjects, such as Apollonius of Perga who wrote On Conics, but they where working on mathematics, an area where testing against reality doesn't really work.

Luckily the Islamic scholars had translated many of the Greek works for their own edification and the Greeks where good about referring to their predecessors in their prefaces, there's several we only know of from mention in the preface of other works

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

I'm reminded of Aristotle's claim that insects had four legs.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

And the heart did the thinking, with the brain being a device to keep the blood from overheating.

__________________
‘To those who regard “crime fiction” as some sacred icon which must follow a rigid formula, I will always be the man who writes 18-syllable haiku.’Trying to make sense of computers, The Error Log.

well to be fair, that was hard to disprove with the technology of the time. The Egyptians believed that and they had a fuller understanding of anatomy than anyone in the ancient world.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

But the insect thing is a definite example of my point. I also seem to recall that he claimed horses had a different number of teeth than they do, another thing that would be awfully easy to check but which he didn't.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

The "wedge" strategy, simply put, is an attempted deceit, and is regarded as a way to convince people who are ignorant or moved by voting blocks to allow usurping the separation of church and state in the USA.

It is often justified by "it's a competing theory". No, it's not, it's dogma. Even if it WAS a competing theory, it would be a competing theory with no evidence whatsoever to support it, and evidence that it is historically revisionistic to boot.

Besides, what Intellegent design do we take? "God"? "The Garuda Bird"? "Coyote?" "Ukko vs. Loviatar"? We have rather a choice of excuses, methinks.

How is this relevant?

Jon

Well, I sort of agree often times the fanatics on both sides hurt themselves, that being said I think Richard Dawkins has some very good point, and his book The God Delusion is quite good, I wouldn't say religion is involved in science (I'm not saying that they haven't been connected in the past), and when it has been I would say that it has had mostly negative effects, Basically religion is like a superstition to answer questions that us (humans) can't answer by science (or any other mean?)...

__________________
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
It is imperative in science to doubt.
~~~ Richard Feynman ~~~
Common sense is not so common
~~~ Voltaire ~~~

How is this relevant to the historial issues?

Jon

Trying to reason with the "wedge" is pointless, one can not reason with a mechanism designed as an intentional deceit.

ETA: The scientific method, like any other method, has grown, changed, and adapted as understanding grows. Saying that it started at any one point is specious, I think.

Saying "the modern practice of science came about circa Popper and Hume" is reasonable, and recognizes an important step, of course.

In support of wranglese's view, which I think has received too little support so far, here's one particular quote from the link in the OP that I find very off target:For some reason, Stark seems to overlook the fact that it was Galileo who first developed the idea that all objects fall the same (without friction), and that was in the early 1600s, long after the so-called "religion inspired period" he refers to. (Indeed it was during what he called the Counter-Reformation, which he mysteriously paints as a kind of brief backward step when Christianity and science were temporarily at odds.) So if the Greeks were fools that took Christianity to expose, why was the Greek view of gravity held for centuries after the Reformation? Also, Stark conveniently overlooks the fact that Galileo himself had a lot of trouble convincing people that gravity really worked that way (for the simple reason that the big rock really does fall faster than the smaller one, due to air resistance).

Also, it has been said several times that the Greeks were careless experimentalists, but that is not uniformly true. Indeed, Ptolemy's model of the solar system was vastly researched, checked, and modified to fit observations. There were no doubt countless simpler versions prior to Ptolemy's, that appeared as hypotheses that were checked and modified. I have a very hard time not seeing the Greek models of the solar system as a perfectly classic (no pun intended) example of the scientific method at play.

This seems as convenient a view as many advanced by Stark (the latter of whom appears to routinely find excuses to discount any and all data that does not fit with his theories, as if he could simply choose what was relevant evidence and what was some kind of meaningless exception). I could as easily argue that polytheism is more closely aligned with science, because science uses different rules in different situations (quantum mechanics could be a "god of atoms", general relativity a "god of the cosmos", thermodynamics a "god of complex systems", etc.). And doesn't monotheism still allow the single god to make or break any law he/she desires? Why wouldn't a religion with no god, say ancestor worship, be more conducive to the concept of unbreakable laws of the universe? Then I could throw in, for good measure, that more ancient religions tended to have female figures be dominant, Earth-goddess types, and that such a model would also be more conducive to science because of the way female god-figures tend to be associated with controlled and gradual processes like evolution and nurturing, both key themes in science, while male god-figures tend to throw their weight around more (miracles and tempests and so forth, not slow evolution or gentle influences), in ways that refute the stability and constancy valued in science.

None of these arguments are the least bit demonstrable, of course, and neither are Stark's. Frankly I see the whole business as purely a coincidence looking for a rationalization, that simply chooses to ignore evidence that doesn't fit with the desired conclusion.

I'm quite sure that Pythagorus' theorums were tested, and used, by lots of other people. That's science.

And, oh yes, like you I am sure that human nature occassioned lots of competition between different philosophers. They had their schools, and competed with each other for students. Ahhhhh! Private, not government funded, education.

No, you're right. We don't need crusaders turning westerners one against the other. Send them crusaders out to convert the Al Quedah jihad, snicker.

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

I'll go along with all that.


I'm mulling that one over. Actually my mind's on repairing a window on my house. Umm. Uh, that one seems like it could bring up oodles of evidence, pro and con. Early religion included the healing arts. Although a lot of people died, a lot managed to toddle on.
I'm willing to agree to disagree, to spare us a long drawn out argument. I think it would, in earliest millenia up to the Schism (12th century AD) it was cum se, cum sa. After that, in Europe and Greece, the church hurt itself by remaining in government, instead of more in the Spirit.
So, after the Schism, you're probably correct.

Heeeeeeeyy, we could really 'round & 'round on this one. May we please agree to disagree?

__________________
Salty
"...with God, all things are possible..." Even evolution

Come up with a definition that differentiates between the two!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

A superstition is basically a religion that I/you/we don't like. It was invented by religious people to describe the religions that weren't theirs. Now it's used by people who don't like religion against all religion. Basically it's a hate term. It has no meaning other than to insult.

__________________
There is a growing tendancy to think of Man as a rational, thinking being, which is absurd.- Marvin the Martian.

It's gotten to the point where careful investigation is needed just to tell parody from reality. I think that means reality is broken.- Noclevername.

I suggest we veer away from superstition vs. religion issues, and stay strictly focused on whether or not belief in certain religions is advantageous to doing good science in the modern vein, or was anything but coincidental to the development of said science. Personally, I find that claim vastly unsubstantiated, and find nothing in Stark's interview to alter that position one iota, but I maintain an open mind that someone might actually produce substantive evidence to the question at some point.

I would submit that spies are good for science!

If those secrets had been kept secret, they would have died with that civilization.

I'd argue that our current "trade secrets" and patents, etc, will be bad when our own civilization collapses because all the cutting edge technology and well-guarded secrets will vanish because the knowledge will not be spread to enough areas to survive until the next advanced civilization comes about.

We need more industrial espionage people!

Your second paragraph suggests to me that you see the accumulation of knowledge as a market function. Am I mistaken?

Your third may be skirting close to what's acceptable posting around here. Since I'm finding your replies interesting, I advise steering clear of what might be taken as jingoism.

__________________
If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about the answers.

I'd say two factors encourage innovation: War, and competitors.

If you are in imminent danger of being killed (or losing the territory you've invaded) you have every incentive to come up with better tools.

If you're in imminent threat of being put out of business, you have every reason to come up with better products that cost less to produce.

Monopolies are bad for business. And peace-loving nations don't innovate as well, unless they sell arms to the warmongering nations.

I took a college class that mentioned this a couple years ago. The gist of a book we read suggested that the indepth examinations of both reality and psychology (the mind of god and man's ability to discern it) fostered a discipline of inquiry into them. Thus was born not just an attempt to explain physical reality but the self-discipline of the internal critique. The main difference between science and the theological examination that was considered to be its origin is not the amount of rigor (which was the novelty of this style of inquiry at the time) but the operating assumptions.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

I agree with that except for the claims of "theological origin". It seems to me the natural null hypothesis there is that both religion and science emerge as human endeavors from the same basic source-- human curiosity and desire to understand and organize. Science, especially modern science, is a much more sophisticated version of this urge, so it is perfectly natural that it appeared later than did religion. Now, is there one single scrap of real evidence, not idle speculation, that a particular religion led to a particular brand of science? Some culture would have made any given scientific breakthrough first, obviously, and the natural null hypothesis is that any correlation with other aspects of that culture are purely coincidental. Evidence to the contrary, anyone? Opinions are as cheap as "books" that espouse pure opinion.

Is the use of a Null Hypothesis proper in this examination? This discussion is more about epistemology than physical science. We're not conducting physical experiments, but evaluating history. It's not a question of what could have happened, it's a question of what did happen.

What sort of evidence would be proper to this examination? What amount of evidence would be convincing? More importantly, who bears the burden of proof? The position of the OP seems to be the status quo, as it and some other posts have listed scholarly support. This debate is an issue of the humanities, not of science, so empiricism and parsimony don't give a seemingly "pro-science" side an automatic leg up.

So, how do you solve a debate like this? Do you need evidence of a theologian saying that studying nature is akin to studying god? I think Thomas Aquinas wrote that. Do you need evidence of a theologian developing scientific principles? I think Okham did that. Do you need a scriptual reference to logic and reasoning? I think the use of the greek logos in John 1:1 did that.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau

I agree with Stark. What he's saying is that Science is the process of inquiry, not the product of inquiry. If science were the product of inquiry, then refuting a predicted result would refute science. On the contrary, science is based upon refuting results.

In contrast, consider that the church's opposition to some science-based heresies was based on results not process. Even with the famous examples of Galileo, the later pope Urban VIII was a friend of Galileo and asked him to write a book comparing heliocentrism and geocentrism, but banned it for political reasons (because Galileo inadvertantly made the pope look like an idiot). There is also some opinion that the Church didn't actually disallow the concept, but disallowed the teaching because Galileo wasn't empirical enough.

__________________
"What you think you thought you saw you did not see." Agent J, MiB - Manhatten Bureau