Is science "western"?

[Shinobi]

People often say "Western" science or "Western" medicine. Are these concepts uniquely Western? Surely contributions to these firlds come from all countries. (Though mostly from countries with a higher degree of wealth that can afford to engage in research.)

Many early dicoveries that modern science built apon came form non "western" countries like Egypt, The middle east, china, aztects ect.

Does anyone think that some people set up a false dichotomy with "western" medicine/science on one side and "eastern" on the other? I'm sure many of the sceptical minded here only belive in what works and what doesn't, regardless of where it comes from.

I think there may be another ulterier motive for this false division. Those that belive in something like Traditional Chinese Medicine would like to paint sceptics (those that demand scientific evidence for claims) as eurocentrics, closed minded to anything from other cultures (and therefore, wrong).

What are peoples views of the use of the terms "western" science/medicne?

[Pyrrho]

I think one should be careful about reading too much into the names of things. "Western" medicine is contrasted with ancient Native American practices as well as with ancient Chinese practices. So "Western" medicine is really a misnomer. The same goes for "Western" science. Really, there is good, bad, and bogus science. But using those designations is more insulting to people who believe in primitive superstitions.

Basically, I agree with what you have said in your opening post.

[Marduk]

I think 'western science' refers to the scientific method.
There are plenty of inventions and such from the East and near east.
Gunpowder- China
Steel -Damascus
the wheel-Mesopotamia etc.
in the old days alchemists just threw things together at random, now and then they came up with something without knowing the underlying chemistry or physics.

[Wyz_sub10]

I work in healthcare. When we hear "Eastern medicine" it almost always refers to alternative medicine - such as the use of herbal remedies, acupuncture, iridology, rolfing, anything that has to do with balancing 'chi' or some such thing.

"Western medicine" is almost always used to refer to 1) pharmaceuticals, 2) operations.

Of course, most new physicians to Canada are from China and India and, surprise, surprise, they prescibe drugs and perform operations.

In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find articles supportive of acupuncture in mainstream Chinese medical journals.

It's a misnormer, really. I think "folk remedies" or "traditional medicine" is more accurate.

BTW - I always find it ironic that many "new agers" I talk to denouce strict practitioners of "western medicine" as racists and ethnocenticists because they will not open themselves up to the wise Chinese or Indian peoples.

Well, it's more than a bit racist (and incredibly ignorant), IMO to think that the majority of Chinese and Indian physicians actually grind herbs and rocks with a mortar and pestle to treat the patients. Some of the best cardiovascual surgeons in this country are from China, and they studied physiology like their North American counterparts.

[ZouPrime]

I've heard peoples talking about "men science" (modern science) and "women science" (pseudo-science/new-age). Same kind of dichotomy, and pretty insulting for women if you ask me.

[Roland98]

Originally posted by ZouPrime
I've heard peoples talking about "men science" (modern science) and "women science" (pseudo-science/new-age). Same kind of dichotomy, and pretty insulting for women if you ask me.

Yikes, glad I never head of that one!

I agree that it would be better to call it "folk medicine" or something of that manner rather than Western vs. Eastern medicine. Recall that we have much to thanks to give to those "Eastern" practitioners in the history of medicine--they remained a light through the Dark Ages in the west.

[simian]

So has anybody else heard the claim that not only is science "western", but is, in fact, "christian"?

Simian

[Ojuice5001]

I always thought that what that phrase meant was that the scientific method--that is, our methodology for deliberately controlling experiments as rigidly as possible--is Western. Yes, other cultures have made plenty of scientific discoveries, but did any of them come up with the kind of insistence on controlled experiments that sixteenth-century Europeans did? And the success of said insistence speaks for itself.

Now, about the value-implications you guys are talking about. First of all, I don't think of Eurocentrism as being necessarily bad. The thoughts and practices of the Romans and Greeks, and the Catholic Church, and the post-Enlightenment societies, all have advantages not posessed by other cultures. Westerners are not the best at everything, but we are the best at the things we set out to do. And if we forget that, we risk losing our identity and proficiencies.

BTW, however, "Western culture" emphatically does include Latin America. Mexico and South America are heirs of the same traditon as the rest of us, they are ruled by most of the same gods (though not with the same ratios; Yahweh and the Roman pantheon have much more influence there), and they have better stability and understanding of the value of traditon. I predict that these countries will enter a cultural golden age soon after ours is over.

Okay, back to science and Eurocentrism. Obviously the scientific method has had a lot of success, because of its extreme efficiency in ruling out things that don't work. The question is, has it ruled out too much? For instance, certain Eastern practices might work, but some aspect of our methodology is unnecessarily strict? That might not be likely, but it's possible.

[the_cave]

Originally posted by Shinobi
People often say "Western" science or "Western" medicine. Are these concepts uniquely Western? Surely contributions to these firlds come from all countries

Shinobi,

I hear what you're saying. I think that we can speak of a "Western" science, simply because Europe is where the Scientific Revolution happened. Modern scientific methodology was invented in Europe--Galileo, Newton, et al, were all Europeans.

That's not to say that there weren't many, many contributions from other countries--technologically, mathematically, and scientificially. And that's not to say that science couldn't have developed elsewhere (it's interesting to speculate whether it would have been different if it had...)

But it remains true that science, as we know it, is a European invention--and hence "Western". Now first of all, of course, many nations practice science--there are scientists from all over the globe. However, I'd argue that what they're practicing is a "Western", i.e. European, invention. And there's nothing wrong with that.

But yes, there's also the question of "folk science". Scientists are reluctant to take folk science seriously, simply because it hasn't been subjected to rigorous testing.

However, that doesn't necessarily mean, of course, that there's no truth to folk science--it just means, we can't necessarily tell the difference between good folk science, and bad (a distinction someone else raised, and it's a good one.)

Some folk science is merely cultural practice--it makes the sick person feel good, and there's nothing wrong with that.

And other folk science actuall "works"--it heals disease, for example.

We don't necessarily know the difference. But right now, the best way (I don't know if it's the only way or not) to find out the difference is by using what we call "Western" science.

But until then, I don't see why we shouldn't allow traditional peoples to use their traditional practices...I definitely think one can have a Western scientific mentality, and still respect the traditions of others.

[BioBeing]

Originally posted by simian
So has anybody else heard the claim that not only is science "western", but is, in fact, "christian"?

Simian
There was a debate here a while ago (apparently not the first for IIDB, but the first I was in) where Hugo Holbing and Bede were arguing that Christianity (of the kind practiced in Western Europe in the 17C) was necessary for the rise of "western science". So, yes, in a way, they were calling it Christian. While I ended up getting lost in the minutiae of the debate, they did seem to have a case, although I was never fully convinced that science didn't just happened to be rising at the same time as christianity, and the only thing about the christianity had going for it was it was flexible enough to allow it.

EDIT: the thread. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=55237)

[ZouPrime]

Originally posted by Ojuice5001

Okay, back to science and Eurocentrism. Obviously the scientific method has had a lot of success, because of its extreme efficiency in ruling out things that don't work. The question is, has it ruled out too much? For instance, certain Eastern practices might work, but some aspect of our methodology is unnecessarily strict? That might not be likely, but it's possible.

I've discussed this with some friends before. (Western) science is traditionnaly conservative; it assigns to new theories the burden of the proof and that's why some of them can litterally wait for decades before being admited as scientifically sound.

Of course, proponents of (eastern) sciences are quick to point out that it is the reason why their pet peave isn't recognized yet. "You will see, in ten years homeopathy will be recognized as true and all of you scientist will look like a bunch of fools!".

The problem is that false-positives are much more damaging for our overall understanding of the world than false-negatives. A wrongly-rejected theory will probably makes his way into science books one way or another. But a wrong, eagerly-accepted theory can do much more damage. When people think that they have discovered the truth, they are less inclined to doubt their knowledge and it can be very difficult for them to change their mind.

That's exactly the problem we have right now with religion: the Bible, by claiming so many things as "true" without any evidence, have single-handedly slow down the progress of science in countless occasions. Heliocentrism and evolution are obvious examples.

For every wrongly-rejected scientific discovery, there are hundreds of crackpot theories. And every crackpot is always convinced that his perpetual motion machine is a member of the first group and not of the second.

[Petronius]

Are you anymore interested to continue in matter concerning the western science and esspecially the roots of it?

If and when the science rose among the Christians, why the Muslims run over for several centuries? However, the teachers of the Muslims were Christians. How it was possible? Why the Europeans were wading in Dark Ages, while the Mulims were doing science?

[xunzian]

I think that the dichotomy, while not necessarily perfectly named, is apt. As others have pointed out, the scientific revolution did happen in Europe and I would argue that the whole Enlightenment mentality and the project of modernity are decidedly "western" endeavors (though there are places in the world that are trying to sunder the "western" aspect from modernity with various degrees of success). When we talk about modern science and medicine, that is what we are talking about, not about the pre-modern advances in science and medicine. Modern science has since become a worldwide phenomenon, as others have pointed out, so the east/west divide seems fairly artificial at this point. Traditional and modern may be better terms.

I would also agree with the general thesis that science did come about largely due to Christian influences. The monotheistic worldview is one where the world is inherently "knowable" to the human mind since it was designed with that mind in mind and furthermore is a world governed by immutable laws endowed by the creator. Naturally, science has moved beyond that worldview, but I would argue that such a worldview is certainly helpful in the creation of modern science and may even be necessary. A fun thing to read in this area are Wang Fuzhi's comments on modern science when it was first introduced to China by Jesuit missionaries. He thought it was just laughable, and he based that conclusion off of standard metaphysical assumptions of his culture. Granted, one could point to various Systamatizers of his time and suggest that, on their own, they could have developed something that would have lead to modern science but frankly my money would be on that never happening because they were bound by many of the same assumptions that Fuzhi had (even if they articulated them in a different manner) and so developing a rigorous system out of them would have been incredibly difficult.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Is Christianity Jewish? I wouyld agree it has its roots in Hebrew culture, but you it definitely isn't what Moses and Isaiah had in mind. In the beginning was the logos...

So, is science western? Well, as western as the compass is Chinese! Should we be surprised compasses point north and not Beijing?

[Dirge]

Modern science begin in ancient Greece. The brutal Roman Empire took over, ending modern science. The Roman Empire collapsed, so modern science came back. All non Roman citizens were essentially slaves. Once nomadic tribes settled into villages, Christianity forged people into a common culture, though they still fought among themselves, and the pestilence of the dark ages eventually brought increased immunity from once deadly diseases, killing off the best and brightest among the victims, then modern science could once again thrive.

[xunzian]

I would disagree with the science-as-Greek hypothesis, since Greek "science" wasn't experimental and it was teleological. That brings Greek "science" more in line with traditional methods that this thread is contrasting "western/modern" science with.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Right. Science isn't greek, but it's historical roots are.

Science begins with refutable testing (notice I'm not saying falsifiability is the whole story). Nevertheless, scientific testing has been produced throughout history and maybe even prehistory. "Science" is a social phenomenon, grown out of a series of factors such as the university, printing, well-developped philosophy (variety and attempts at a standardization of logical and mathematical methodologies), etc. Modern science HAD to be born in Western Europe and at the time it did, but it is one of the most secular and transplantable developments in human culture.

[kennethamy]

People often say "Western" science or "Western" medicine. Are these concepts uniquely Western? Surely contributions to these firlds come from all countries. (Though mostly from countries with a higher degree of wealth that can afford to engage in research.)

Many early dicoveries that modern science built apon came form non "western" countries like Egypt, The middle east, china, aztects ect.

Does anyone think that some people set up a false dichotomy with "western" medicine/science on one side and "eastern" on the other? I'm sure many of the sceptical minded here only belive in what works and what doesn't, regardless of where it comes from.

I think there may be another ulterier motive for this false division. Those that belive in something like Traditional Chinese Medicine would like to paint sceptics (those that demand scientific evidence for claims) as eurocentrics, closed minded to anything from other cultures (and therefore, wrong).

What are peoples views of the use of the terms "western" science/medicne?

It is from the ancient Greek "phusis" or "nature" that we derive our term, "physics". The Greek pre-Socratics began speculation about the nature (phusis of things, namely, the "real" nature of the "stuff" ousia from which underlies everything. Thales, the first of the pre-Socratics held that all was "the Wet" or water, and successive thinkers proposed other realities which underlay the appearance of diversity. And these "realities" were sometimes very abstract, like Hericlitus's Change, and Parmenidies, "The One". And it was Democritus who proposed that the underlying reality behind all of diversity was really, "atomos", or "the indivisible". So, I think it is fair to attribute the seminal idea of science, namely, the underlying nature of things beneath the appearances, to the Greeks.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

I'd change that to "Underlying material nature of things beneath the appearances". Science can do nothing with the hindu concept of maya which is resolved through moksha. This relates to one of the points I was trying to make: Indians, for example, did have instances of science, but the modern social phenomenon we normally call "science" could only be born in the Western Europe of the renaissance.

---
The curious thing is that the concept of maya can help us understand the nature of our underlying quantum reality. Isn't it ironic?

[xunzian]

Again, I don't think that the Greeks did anything that can be said to be qualitatively different from other cultures. Both the Chinese and Indian civilizations made similar technological advances to the Greeks as well as developing methodologies for thinking about the world that can be easily likened to the Greek system.

Modern science is "a-whole-nother animal", as they say and I don't think the Greek developments are really pertinent in this case.

I will agree with Logos that science did become one of the most secular and transplantable ideas. If you look for God in his creation, you'll find that He is conspicuously absent and secularism can't help but develop. But it doesn't follow that science was born in secularism, secularism was instead an outgrowth of its initial conditions that could not have been avoided.

[Dirge]

People often say "Western" science or "Western" medicine. Are these concepts uniquely Western? Surely contributions to these firlds come from all countries. (Though mostly from countries with a higher degree of wealth that can afford to engage in research.)

Many early dicoveries that modern science built apon came form non "western" countries like Egypt, The middle east, china, aztects ect.

Does anyone think that some people set up a false dichotomy with "western" medicine/science on one side and "eastern" on the other? I'm sure many of the sceptical minded here only belive in what works and what doesn't, regardless of where it comes from.

I think there may be another ulterier motive for this false division. Those that belive in something like Traditional Chinese Medicine would like to paint sceptics (those that demand scientific evidence for claims) as eurocentrics, closed minded to anything from other cultures (and therefore, wrong).

What are peoples views of the use of the terms "western" science/medicne?

It is from the ancient Greek "phusis" or "nature" that we derive our term, "physics". The Greek pre-Socratics began speculation about the nature (phusis of things, namely, the "real" nature of the "stuff" ousia from which underlies everything. Thales, the first of the pre-Socratics held that all was "the Wet" or water, and successive thinkers proposed other realities which underlay the appearance of diversity. And these "realities" were sometimes very abstract, like Hericlitus's Change, and Parmenidies, "The One". And it was Democritus who proposed that the underlying reality behind all of diversity was really, "atomos", or "the indivisible". So, I think it is fair to attribute the seminal idea of science, namely, the underlying nature of things beneath the appearances, to the Greeks.

One of the reasons for the reemergence of science was the rediscovery of ancient Greek writing on the subject.

[deadman_932]

Joseph Needham did some great work on Oriental science and in particular the question of why "Western" science seems to have outstripped it, despite the early successes of Asian investigators. Part of the answer lies, according to Needham, in the differences between Oriental/Western theologies and the fact that successive Asian rulers tended to burn the great libraries that preceded them.

If the Muslim world didn't serve as a repository for the Greeks...well, maybe we'd all be in the same boat.

[Adamu]

Right. Science isn't greek, but it's historical roots are.

Science begins with refutable testing (notice I'm not saying falsifiability is the whole story). Nevertheless, scientific testing has been produced throughout history and maybe even prehistory. "Science" is a social phenomenon, grown out of a series of factors such as the university, printing, well-developped philosophy (variety and attempts at a standardization of logical and mathematical methodologies), etc. Modern science HAD to be born in Western Europe and at the time it did, but it is one of the most secular and transplantable developments in human culture.

The roots of science, like so many other "firsts" of civilization reach the ancient near east, in mesopotamia. Much of Greek thought, the use of an **ahem** alphabet, mathematics, engineering & architecture, a base 60 system for geometry, and more and their likely transmittal via the western shores of the ancient near east (this is where Thales of Miletus picked up many of his ideas) should be clear.

Science is "western" only insofar as one's perspective is from mesopotamia.

;)

The Babylonian Origin of Greek Science (http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpapers/fp016_science.htm) for more.

[Schneibster]

Modern science begin in ancient Greece. The brutal Roman Empire took over, ending modern science. The Roman Empire collapsed, so modern science came back. All non Roman citizens were essentially slaves. Once nomadic tribes settled into villages, Christianity forged people into a common culture, though they still fought among themselves, and the pestilence of the dark ages eventually brought increased immunity from once deadly diseases, killing off the best and brightest among the victims, then modern science could once again thrive.Or perhaps not so much. There's a reason it's called a "Caesarian section," and a reason why Roman roads are still used today. These people had concrete, knew how to make irrigation work, and knew things about chemistry, physics, and medicine that were forgotten after the fall of their empire until the 18th century or later.

The real problems didn't start until the Christians took over. That's what led to the Dark Ages. What many people do not understand about the Christians is that they were revolutionaries, perhaps the first in the modern sense of the term that the world had ever known. It took them a long time, but eventually they took over and the Romans were co-opted. But science qua science suffered under their rule; they were more interested in power. As it was then, so it is now.

Meanwhile, the philosophers of Medina kept the ball rolling for a thousand years. Al-khemia and zero were among their better-known products (whether they invented either is beside the point; when the gumption developed in Europe to follow up, the concepts were handy, and the Muslims of Medina were the reason).

I'll wind up with my favorite misquote: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[Lógos Sokratikós]

Right. Science isn't greek, but it's historical roots are.

Science begins with refutable testing (notice I'm not saying falsifiability is the whole story). Nevertheless, scientific testing has been produced throughout history and maybe even prehistory. "Science" is a social phenomenon, grown out of a series of factors such as the university, printing, well-developped philosophy (variety and attempts at a standardization of logical and mathematical methodologies), etc. Modern science HAD to be born in Western Europe and at the time it did, but it is one of the most secular and transplantable developments in human culture.

The roots of science, like so many other "firsts" of civilization reach the ancient near east, in mesopotamia. Much of Greek thought, the use of an **ahem** alphabet, mathematics, engineering & architecture, a base 60 system for geometry, and more and their likely transmittal via the western shores of the ancient near east (this is where Thales of Miletus picked up many of his ideas) should be clear.

Science is "western" only insofar as one's perspective is from mesopotamia.

;)

The Babylonian Origin of Greek Science (http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpapers/fp016_science.htm) for more.

Wrong. Science didn't begin in Mesopotamia, just as Christianity wasn't created by Abraham nor the wheel invented by monkeys just because they learned to roll. Science as we know it was a development of Western Europe at the renaissance, capitalizing on previous developments.

[LukeS]

I always thought that what that phrase meant was that the scientific method--that is, our methodology for deliberately controlling experiments as rigidly as possible--is Western.

But is/was it Western to people west of Europe?

[Rycharde_Manne]

The birth of European science is always put far too late, even by eminent people who should at least have read some books. Perhaps the earlier scientists don't seem to be as heroic as the Keplers, Galileos and Newtons. However, let me try to start more or less at the beginning. In the beginning there was ignorance! Ok, Europe had farming and metal implements to kill each other but, boy were they crap compared to the neighbouring Muslim empire (which included Spain). Charlemagne was deeply troubled by this and having been crowned Holy Roman Emperor thought he should bring some civility back to Europe. He founded what were known as cathedral schools, many of which later turned into universities. The earliest universities were founded in 12th-13th centuries. The education in those times was largely Theology but also the Seven Liberal Arts, which had survived in pretty bad shape from their Greco-Roman heritage. But this was also the period of the great translations into Latin of contemporary Arabic and lost Greek texts, largely done in Moorish Spain or Sicily. The Liberal Arts comprised logic, grammar, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music. Looks to us like a pretty daunting curriculum but at the time, say 10th C, the texts in Europe were at infant level. I have seen originals in the British Library of Euclid's Elements and they are rough and ready with most proofs removed. Anyway, back to science. It is perhaps ironic that science should enter the western psyche as an arts subject. The universities then had two faculties - Theology and Arts. However, added to the arts curriculum was philosophy, out of which grew natural philosophy, better known now as physics. Science was thus born as a small part of the arts faculty.

For those who like to somehow gloat that this is therefore a 'christian' science should look more closely at what happened next. Yes, you can guess - the scientists and the theologians were at each others' throats! No joke! They hated each other. Theologians saw the scientists as heretical, the scientists saw the theologians as being deluded and stupid - ring any bells?! This came to a head in an infamous Condemnation of 1277 by the Bishop of Paris directed at scholars at the Sorbonne, Paris. Listed 219 propositions that could not be held or taught by the faculty. Largely directed at aristotelian, neoplatonist and arabic teachings that went against scripture. Nice link here
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/condemnation/
have just found, but cannot find anywhere on the net the actual lit of propositions. From memory, some of them had more to do with disrespect towards theologians and clergy (mostly humorous) than science, but the largest part was devoted to scientific speculations that went against orthodoxy. One part was the theory that the universe had always existed (no creation), others were about the possible motions of planets (church believed that earthly and heavenly motion were totally different) and so on. So much for christian science. In truth, science developed in spite of the religious climate, as it did in the muslim countries.

rych

[Rycharde_Manne]

have found another link
http://www.christianorder.com/features/features_2001/features_apr01.html
I wouldn't bother quoting it in a science forum but might be amusing on here. If you can be bothered just read the twisted double-think of this christian take on the matter - the writer also seems to know little physics beyond what suits him despite being a mathematician on general relativity!!!! (see the description of impetus)

The one reason for quoting it is that it asks the question I also asked above as to why popular history of science always seems to start in the late 16th, early 17th century? It may be plain ignorance on the part of scientists - a professional scientist is not the same as a professional historian of science. I have seen a few scientists heckled in a most respectful way at the Royal Society for huge historical gaffes. Perhaps medieval science is just too hard to read - although so is reading Kepler. My take on it is that a lot of medieval science was about trying to figure out what the language of science really was. This is largely physics, so trying to understand acceleration, force, impetus, momentum, resistance etc was fundamental before the mathematization of physics could fruitfully take place. However, in my opinion these medieval scholars were till scientists, some of them even produced experimental evidence, such as for the production of the rainbow. Why do they remain unrecognized? In this I slightly agree with the above author. The scientific enterprise now often seems not just about freedom to research but also the licence to do whatever can be done to put control into as few hands as possible, see GM food as an example. This will probably take us onto a totally different topic.

Also my opinion on why the whole enterprise happened when it did was that the Church unwittingly let in its own trojan horse into its academic curriculum. A lot of medieval scholasticism was horribly turgid stuff, but what these guys were doing was sharpening their teeth using logic on their doctrines. How dumb was that?! They pitted logic v theology, aristotle v plato. What did we end up with? science! ... and heretics! Just as Christianity defeated the Greek philosophers they became infected with the very ideas they wanted to crush. Very funny!

rych

[Adamu]

The roots of science, like so many other "firsts" of civilization reach the ancient near east, in mesopotamia. Much of Greek thought, the use of an **ahem** alphabet, mathematics, engineering & architecture, a base 60 system for geometry, and more and their likely transmittal via the western shores of the ancient near east (this is where Thales of Miletus picked up many of his ideas) should be clear.

Science is "western" only insofar as one's perspective is from mesopotamia.

;)

The Babylonian Origin of Greek Science (http://www.hebrewhistory.info/factpapers/fp016_science.htm) for more.

Wrong. Science didn't begin in Mesopotamia, just as Christianity wasn't created by Abraham nor the wheel invented by monkeys just because they learned to roll. Science as we know it was a development of Western Europe at the renaissance, capitalizing on previous developments.

The roots of science most certainly reach mesopotamia.
Unless you think astronomy, mathematics, engineering/architecture, Time reckoning, et al aren't forms of science.
And of course Christianity wasn't founded by Abraham but interestingly his father, Terah, was an astronomer priest at Ur, a mesopotamian city.
Likewise it is the mesopotamians to whom we credit the first use of a wheel.
Much in "western civilization" is traced to the ancient near east.

Thanks to the Arabs and Jewish mystics who retained such knowledge through the dark ages so as to be rediscovered during the Renaissance.

[Friar Bellows]

Can people stop saying renaissance when they refer to the birth of science, and instead say middle ages? I realise that amongst cool people the word medieval is synonymous with backwards or barbaric, but the fact is that being cool has nothing to do with being right.

Firstly, we have the rise of the university, a place where smart people can gather together and do smart things. Secondly, there's the translation, communication and critique of the methods and ideas of the ancient Greeks. Thirdly, here you can read at your leisure about some of the medieval men who created modern science: Robert Grosseteste (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/grosseteste/), Robert Bacon (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/roger-bacon/), Thomas Aquinas (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/), William of Ockham (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ockham/), and Nicole Oresme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Oresme).

Science, a medieval invention. Shock, horror.

[Fortuna]

Modern science begin in ancient Greece. The brutal Roman Empire took over, ending modern science. The Roman Empire collapsed, so modern science came back.

This is unfair to the Roman empire and well, wrong. As another poster pointed out, the Roman made great strides in science. Roads, concrete, great advances in metallurgy and took architecture and building to much greater heights than the greeks ever did. They produced a solar calendar that was vastly superior to any the greeks had. They produced a considerable amount of literature, plus an alphabet that survives in most of the western languages today. No greek city could ever be considered comparable to Rome.

Also, Greeks alwas seemed to have unity problems, with the exception of the period of Alexander and the Macedonians. Still, I'm not downplaying the accomplihsments of Greece, but my take on it has always been that Rome took Greek knowledge and took it to even greater heights. Alexandria continued to be a center of science and learning under Roman rule.

It is also interesting that the advancements of Greek science and philisophy seemd to occur during very specific periods in greek history.

You also seem to forget that after the fall of the Roman empire came what historians called the "dark ages". That's in considerable opposition to your statement that science "came back" (a=with the implication of imediacy)after the fall of the Roman empire.

Also, I remember learning that Greek society was just as slave-centric as Roman society was.


Also, remember that Galilleo was not only in opposition to th church, he was also in opposition to the Greek idea of the natural philospher. He was in opposition to Ptolemy and Aristotle. Further Gallileo's final error with his Heliocentric solar system was due to the fact that even he could not free his mindset from the top-down approach of philosophy. He could not break free of the idea that the orbits of the planets just had to be perfect circles.

It was only when Science developed the scientific method, and got rid of the "natural philosopher" with his "top down" approaches, and began to take a bottom up approach basing hypothesis on the data and ignoring the natural philosopher.

I remember during my collegiate physics classes a lecture from Richard Feynman where he [somewhat jokingly, but somewhat seriously] told us that if we want science to continue to advance and thrive we need only to ignore anything philosophers have to say about science. I thin that Feynman must have been right because from my own experience, it is frustrating to try to discuss physics and chemistry with many philosophers. (Example - Read through the thread "Matter is not the source of consciousness" in the Philosophy forum).

[Friar Bellows]

Robert Bacon (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/roger-bacon/)

That's Roger Bacon, of course. Didn't notice it before the arbitrary edit time-limit was passed. Oh well.

[Robert Byers]

Western just means Christiandom and where those people moved too on planet earth.
Science in anything of relevance is entirely the achievment of Christian Europe indeed largely Protestant europe with the most important puritan/evangelical stimulous that raised intelligence levels of the common man and so small circles of scholars likewise were raised in their abilities.
The rest of the world has only in living memory copied our intelligence.
If they do something now it is their achievment only as individuals. They will always just be students.
Indeed in my country foreign doctors from India, China etc are seen as suspect as not up to par with Canadian doctors (of any identity) despite some degree on the wall.

Science is the result of intelligence in the end.
Intelligence has been so higher then in the rest of the world as to make comparisons a waste of time.
Thankfully the non european peoples are rising but it sure took a long time.
Robert Byers

[Friar Bellows]

Science in anything of relevance is entirely the achievment of Christian Europe indeed largely Protestant europe...

Bollocks. Science was established in Catholic Europe, invented by Catholics, before there was even such a thing as Protestant Europe. I've already mentioned the important names earlier in this thread. After the stagnation of the first half or so of the Renaissance, science developed at a roughly similar rate in Protestant and Catholic parts of Europe. Protestant domination came perhaps in the second half of the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th, with a remarkable and greatly significant Jewish contribution. And by now science is dominated by atheists, anyway.

[jayh]

Are you anymore interested to continue in matter concerning the western science and esspecially the roots of it?

If and when the science rose among the Christians, why the Muslims run over for several centuries? However, the teachers of the Muslims were Christians. How it was possible? Why the Europeans were wading in Dark Ages, while the Mulims were doing science?


That worked for a while, when science did not challenge religious dogma. Algebra was all good and ok because it did not threaten Allah. Christianity tried to challenge science, but mostly eventually lost. At that time, Islam was back into the medieval mindset.

Even to day you'll find devout Muslims in computer science or engineering, but note evolutionary theory.

[Schneibster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought

Hmmm....

"The first Muslim biologist and philosopher to develop a theory of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) was the Afro-Arab (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afro-Arab) writer al-Jahiz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Jahiz) in the 9th century."

You were saying?

[Schneibster]

And then there's this (http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_151_200/muslim_responses_to_evolution.htm).

"Ghulam Ahmad Pervez and his student Dr. Abdul Wadood are included in the category of those who totally accept evolutionary theory and endorsed Darwin’s idea into a book titled, “The Phenomena of Nature in the Quran and Sunnah” in which he completely derives the evolutionary stages from different verses of the Holy Quran."

Bigotry irritates me.

[adren@line]

It is from the ancient Greek "phusis" or "nature" that we derive our term, "physics". The Greek pre-Socratics began speculation about the nature (phusis of things, namely, the "real" nature of the "stuff" ousia from which underlies everything. Thales, the first of the pre-Socratics held that all was "the Wet" or water, and successive thinkers proposed other realities which underlay the appearance of diversity. And these "realities" were sometimes very abstract, like Hericlitus's Change, and Parmenidies, "The One". And it was Democritus who proposed that the underlying reality behind all of diversity was really, "atomos", or "the indivisible". So, I think it is fair to attribute the seminal idea of science, namely, the underlying nature of things beneath the appearances, to the Greeks.
atomism and monism ("the one") existed in India before Greece.


Either way, Philosophy is the grand-father of science.

[Robert Byers]

Science in anything of relevance is entirely the achievment of Christian Europe indeed largely Protestant europe...

Bollocks. Science was established in Catholic Europe, invented by Catholics, before there was even such a thing as Protestant Europe. I've already mentioned the important names earlier in this thread. After the stagnation of the first half or so of the Renaissance, science developed at a roughly similar rate in Protestant and Catholic parts of Europe. Protestant domination came perhaps in the second half of the 19th century, and the first half of the 20th, with a remarkable and greatly significant Jewish contribution. And by now science is dominated by atheists, anyway.

You are right in denying non-Christian civilizations having a claim to the great intelligence leap of the last 400 years.
It was Christianity that raised Europe the rest of mankind in all things related to intyelligence.
Yet this was clearly done since and because of the Protestant reformation.
The clear difference between Protestant Europe and Catholic Europe specks for itself to those who know what was happening.
Protestant Germans built a greater civilization the Catholic Germans. Protestant Scotsmen likewise over Catholic Scotsmen.
Protestant Dutch over Catholic Dutch and so.
Science was a manisfestation of the protestant ascendencey in the 1600 and 1700's. Of coarse no one including you deny the 1800's and later.
I mean that the protestant stimulant raised everyone who lived within these boundaries. If Catholic or Jews immigrated later then they would also rise, as long as they mingled, to the general protestant peoples level. just like today when even the most backward third world peoples immigrate and rise to western standards especially their children.
It is about the circles one moves in however their is a original origin for the standard of that circle.
I believe also that evagelical stimulous moved protestants ahead and this was most evident in the English specking world. This was because Evangelicalism kept up strongest here in each following generation.
Being Protestant or Catholic is irrelevant in present countries therefore.
Being a Protestant or Catholic country however was originaly everything.
It all comes down to those who most closely followed God in the scriptures prevailed over those who did less so.
This is why today America is the greatest.
Rob byers