How much more advanced would we be if we never had the dark ages?
>>1374153
Screw the dank ages, imagine what it would be like if Maldek hadn't blown itself up
>>1374153
what i've always wondered when seeing those graphics, it's how the fuck do you quantitavely measure "scientific advancement"
>>1374153
What is this cancerous graph? How does one measure scientific advancement
>>1374219
In beakers.
>>1374153
Define "advanced" and explain why it is desirable
I want to know what kind of scientific advancement the romans did that made them contribute more than the greeks or what happened to the point where the "Christian" Dark Age was less enlightened than fucking Egyptians.
>>1374228
Estonia being one of the most atheistic countries in the world, what sort of scientific advancement goes on there?
>>1374228
>He used the word correlates
Thanks anon, we don't need another one of these ridiculous threads
>>1374153
>people are still reposting this dried out meme from 2008
what next, le "troll science" comics? kys.
This is a troll thread, but I'll use the opportunity to post the correct version.
That feel when we probably really would be exploring the galaxy right now if not for reactionary "Renaissance" humanists destroying the achievements of the Catholic Middle Ages.
>>1374268
>Catholic Dark Ages
Thank God for the Protestant printing press
>>1374282
Gutenberg was a Catholic.
>>1374228
>graphism made to prove that being religious is bad for scientific advancement
Proves its point by:
>Level of atheism generally correlates strongly with intelligence and scientific advancement
Something seems off here, anon
>>1374153
There is a really intriguing story by McKenna about an alternative time line without Christianity, keeping the empire alive and continuing Greek knowledge, contacting the new world and going into cultural exchange with the Maya, evolving into greeco-roman-mayan civilization that was so advanced that they landed on the moon in the 12th century.
The narrative starts at about 4:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ne3K23sG_2E
>>1374396
>evolving into greeco-roman-mayan civilization that was so advanced that they landed on the moon in the 12th century.
So in the course of 700-800 years they abandoned slavery, underwent a major agricultural revolution, discovered advenced metallurgy, the population grew exponentially to the point when they started industrializing and the Empire underwent several industrial revolutions, they discovered electricity, wireless communication and rocket science, just because the lack of Christianity?
How fucking retard is that?
>>1374475
>fucking retard
>Mckenna
Pick two.
>>1374475
well yeah thats the whole point, christianity is literally cancer
>>1374396
Holy shrooms
>>1374290
No all intellectuals and inventors back then were secretly atheist but they had to pretend to be Christian otherwise the church would have murdered them. I mean think about it, do you really think someone who believes in a magical sky fairy is actually capable of creative thought? Get real.
>>1374242
Probably more than you think. But don't fall for that silly meme map.
T. Estonian Atheist
>>1374396
DUDE
>>1374475
It's an extrapolation on the continuation of Greek knowledge which could have been a possible scenario, had the empire not adapted Christianity.
Imagine schools of Plato and Aristotle thriving for another 2000 years and all of the ancient knowledge not lost in the ruins of antiquity.
>>1374502
>all intellectuals and inventors
seriously? is this some meme?
needs some [citation needed]
>>1374502
Nice meme
>>1374517
If Greek paganism was so great, why were the Greeks the first Gentiles to embrace Christianity?
>Paul tricked them with his sneaky Jew magic!
But I thought they were supposed to be super duper smart?
>>1374502
So Newton developed a revelations doom date purely for bantz?
>>1374517
>>1374482
With or without Christianity, the fall of Rome was inevitable. Christiantiy wasn't a deciding factor in this event, so it is safe to assume that without Christianity it would be the same.
Christianity even helped the antique knowledge to survive and it was a base of (minor) technological advancement.
>>1374517
The Christian Roman Empire was already decadent, but the Middle Ages much improved on Greek and Roman knowledge. By around the year 1040, after Vikings were Christianized, the sciences and humanities were already surpassing the Classical world. This shit about the "Dark Ages" is the most debunked piece of pseudo-history around.
>>1374594
From the fall of the WRE to Charlemagne, ages were definitely dark, the meme is that all the middle ages were dark and not just the first turbulent phase.
>>1374502
>magical sky fairy
moron, get off my board.
>>1374242
probly the same as in every other communism block country thats still trying to become a true first world country
>>1374153
The ayys would've found our radio signals earlier and we would have been glassed already.
>>1374153
>christian dark ages
>neglecting the plagues and mongolians
>>1374153
Tech from 2000s would have happened back in 1500s.
>>1374153
We'd be on Mars by now.
Because nearly all of us of European decent would be dead.
But reborn in an alternate universe where the Nixon administration didn't happen.
Thus, Mars.
>>1374186
I leik u
>>1374228
Correlation does not equal causation, autist. I'm speaking as an atheist who has argued against religion on this board before, but you're making us look bad when you use an argument like this
>>1374153
So tell me, where did you get that chart from? How does it quantify scientific advancement? Why are the Romans automatically more advanced than the Greeks? What major scientific advancement did they create? Can you actually tell me how scientific advancement was stifled without resorting to "hurr durr the Church did it"? Why does it ignore every region of the world besides Europe, even though the Islamic world, India, and China were far more technologically advanced than Europe for much of history? Why do you call them the Christian Dark Ages, as if the Dark Ages were solely caused by Christianity? Why do you even bother calling them the Dark Ages when that name is a fucking meme? How stupid are you?
Go back to /pol/ where you belong.
>>1376117
calm down reddit, you are leaking butthurt all over the place
Can't wait for Hillary to become President.
>>1376117
Lol
>>1374207
Beakers.
>>1374228
Fucking tipped
For real you so called intellectuals always omit how a plague wiped out half of europe.
But no, is cause of CHRISTIAN DARK AGE
And this graph makes no fucking sense. It's mixing up spatial locations (countries) then switch to religion and to fucking science cause fuck you.
I hate it when imbeciles make easy-to-swallow false graph to lure other "enlightened" folks into believing into their messy ideas. It's obviously biased and tries to pass this off as mere data. It's no different than religious brainwash.
>>1374153
/his/ should make already a pasta or image to put as a response when this is posted.
Because this is reposted all the time.
Actually who even CREATED this graphic? Its around for years and never found the source, look like it was made by some random person on the internet.
>>1376304
Christians believe in sky faeries,its more important to please the sky faerie than do the hard work of scientific discovery. That is why we had the dark ages,prayer was more important than math.
Reminder that most modern anti-Christian memes were originally created and/or spread by Protestants in order smear the Catholic Church.
The American Protestant of today who say "Christianity invented everything" are the descendants of those who for centuries denied Catholic Christians had any contribution to Science.
>>1376379
No, they were too busy surviving back then. They couldn't afford to make any researches and innovations.
>>1376379
Actually if you read into guys like Newton and Boyle they believed that God desired them to discover things about the world that he created for them. Their scientific research was a facet of their worship. In the Dark Ages people did'nt have the monetary means to spend on things like academic pursuits for the most part, come the Medieval Period (800-1400) they did and learning exploded, despite the church having MORE, not less, power and influence.
>>1376365
It was
The guy still defends it on his blog
>>1374153
Advancement is made during times of leisure when there's nothing else to spend money on or times of stress when problems need to be solved immediately
If Rome didn't fall, western civilization likely would have stagnated much like Chinese civilization
The Roman Empire was more stagnant desu. Slavery causes stagnation.
>>1374153
You forgot the GODDAMN CHINESE!
Bump
>>1374228
>Atheism generally correlates with scientific advancement.
No it fucking doesn't.
>>1376379
either you are shitposting or your knowledge of history is pathetic.
WES BE FLYIN IN THE SKY IN ROBODRIVEN SUPAH CARS
>people still buying this meme about the "dark ages."
If you weren't on a history board and you were just some random as she, I'd pity you.
The dark ages came with huge agricultural advancements and leaps forward in architecture. We became better at warfare. Medicine got a little worse, but it wasn't great to begin with. The dark ages initiated philosophy (des cartes was late medieval) and brought a universal language to the Germanic peoples to be shared with the vulgar Latins. The feudal hierarchy was more effective at protecting everyday people than centralised Roman policy ever was and the church was an incredible tool to spread and develop scientific knowledge. Sure, the church was also cunty about the solar model, but they also helped create and spread Mendelian genetics and lots of other cool shit. Secular schooling that our current education systems are modeled after started in the early days of the HRE. Vernaculars were codified, allowing more everyday people the ability to read and write.
They weren't perfect and there were real setbacks, but they weren't the great evil that everyone says they were.
The picture is not very related.
>people are unironically responding to bait this pathetic
>>1374268
>"Renaissance" humanists destroying the achievements of the Catholic Middle Ages.
This is as much historical revisionism as the "Christian Dark Ages" of the OP, just going in the opposite direction.
That picture is also not "the correct version", mostly for the two obvious problems that it's only applicable for Western Europe (and thus irrelevant for overall human scientific discoveries) and that the Renaissance isn't a time period, but an art movement. Also, it still doesn't have labels in the y-axis, so you can go fuck yourself.
>>1374475
don't forget they also decided that conquering the rest of europe was not worth it and decided to venture into the west (also inventing the compass or something to allow them oceanic travel) stablishing contact with the mayans (before their classic collapse, of course) quick enough to thrive the greco-roman-mayan civilization as early as possible to develop everything you named. i would lower your numbers to at least 500-600 years
>>1374229
Sid plz go.
>>1379259
>The feudal hierarchy was more effective at protecting everyday people
Pax Romana (Latin for "Roman Peace") was the long period of relative peacefulness for 206 years (27 BC to 180 AD) The peace was only broken by wars in Judaea and Parthia.
> the church was an incredible tool to spread and develop scientific knowledge.
Science didnt start developing until the 13th century,and there was no spread until the invention of the printing press.
>>1374260
>kys
Every single one of you, kill yourselves.
>>1381105
Pax Romana only lasted so long. It couldn't cope with the increased power of previously docile barbarian groups. The hierarchy of the Roman empire, I would argue, is not what maintained the peace.
It may not have been called science, but scharly activity was, for a long time, a pursuit undergone only by monastic orders.
>>1381163
Meanwhile the Carolingian Renaissance lasted one generation before Charlemanges numerous bastards started fighting each other.
The Roman empire was larger,more interconnected and more peaceful than the dark ages.
>>1379259
>they also helped create and spread Mendelian genetics and lots of other cool shit.
They tried to get him to stop. It's also funny that the stereotype worked against him in academia, nobody wanted to take a monk seriously. So the church and intelligentsia were equally dicks to Mendel.
>>1381163
Those barbarian groups were never docile. What killed the Roman empire was the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few, the subsequent exemption of the latifundia owners from taxes (whether legal or extra legal), the impoverishment of civil society, and the stereotyping of labor (your father was a potter, you are a potter).
Roman society was only as strong as the middle class farmers who formed the bulk of the military.
This is essentially the same process which killed spartan society writ large.
I do believe the lesson of history is unambiguous here.
>>1381360
>What killed the Roman empire was the concentration of wealth into the hands of the few,
And yet the Byzantine lasted another 1000 years,I think the causes of Romes fall were a sequence of ambiguous problems that could not be solved in time.
>>1381385
Ah, but if you were a historian of Byzantine history you would know of the numerous land reforms pushed by the Emperors and how the fortunes of empire waxed and waned as a result.
The loss of most of the overseas holdings actually strengthened the sovereign, and made it possible to challenge the regional strategoi.
>>1379189
Huh, the Protestant YECs always leave out the fact that they were Catholics. Gee, I wonder why?
>>1374475
>they abandoned slavery
I don't know if that's on the video, but there's no need to end slavery to go to the moon. If anything, it's probably useful to keep the slaves.
>>1381437
Because catholics believe in a false gospel(evolution) and are therefore not Christians
>>1379259
>The dark ages initiated philosophy
What the fuck am I reading.
"The dark ages" what the fuck does this shit even mean
>>1381503
The Dark Ages was a real period directly after the fall of the Western Roman Empire which pretty much fucked up everything since the largest singular power in Europe proper collapsed. Technically the Dark Ages begin before the Fall itself, as the collapse was not a sudden thing but a gradual erosion of power as corruption, nepotism, bureaucracy and invasions weakened Rome until it finally did collapse to invading barbarians, who weren't really all that barbaric but for Rome there was Romans, Roman subjects and barbarians so whachagonnado.
Now, the Dark Ages was a very brief period of time until new governing bodies established their domains. The HRE is indirectly borne out of the Fall of Rome and claimed to be its successor
>inb4 >h>r>e
although it would not be the only state to attempt to claim it to be the successor to Rome, it would be the most successful.
The Dark Ages fairly quickly gave way to the Early Medieval period, and the Dark Ages themselves were not that Dark. Although much knowledge was lost by the end of the Dark Age, so named because of the massive lack of written documents surviving from the time, making it a "dark spot" on a historical map, the technological level was at least on par, and often somewhat better than it had been before the Fall of Rome. Barring certain lost "technologies" such as plumbing and continent spanning roads, although that is partially due to the massive cost needed to develop such things, something Rome very well could afford with its mass of tributary states and very much something small nation states with attached duchies could not afford.
>>1374153
very advanced
>>1381670
What is this?
>>1381780
It appears to be a graph roughly approximating the social development of the world from 14,000BCE to 2000CE.
It seems to imply that any loss of society from the Fall of Rome and subsequent Dark Ages was made up in great time by the eras of Renaissance and Enlightenment.
>>1381876
I can figure out how to read a graph, I'm asking what the labels mean.
What is being defined as "social development", and how is it being measured? What is "East" and "West" in this context?
Even if the graph looks more scientific (and is definitely more complete), it's just as pointless without clear labels and context.
>>1379610
There was a drop in scientific knowledge during the Renaissance, this is a simple fact. The work of medieval natural philosophers was discarded and not rediscovered until Galileo, Descartes, and Newton.
>only applicable for Western Europe (and thus irrelevant for overall human scientific discoveries)
There have been no significant scientific advancements outside of the West for the past 1000 years, so I'm afraid it's the rest of the world that's irrelevant to "overall human scientific discoveries".
>the Renaissance isn't a time period, but an art movement
It's both.
>>1382434
There is a difference between philosophy and scientific experiment.
Science works when it explains objective observations and explores their implications.
>>1376379
>implying math would have saved your ass from the black plague
Holy hell you lordless lords are as laughable than the hard christians
>>1382434
>>>/pol/
Even if I conceded that there weren't any "scientific advancements" outside of Europe for 1000 years, which I won't, the graph is still wrong because people outside of Europe always retained the knowledge. Even if some of it was lost, the drops you see in both OP's and your pic are just blown out of proportion. The fact that both of you ignore that the Roman Empire fell until the 15th century (or arguably the 13th) is telling.
There were pretty much no scientific endeavors throughout the whole "Dark Ages". Every scholarly work was centered around philosophy, and the concepts of scientific experimentation and the philosophy of science were non-existent. Even though this mostly continued the Greek tradition of philosophy over true science, the fact of the matter is that Greek philosophy was something completely new, while medieval philosophy was hardly innovative.
The Renaissance is only the art movement. People have conflated it to be a time period, but it happened at different times in different regions, so that makes no sense. And the biggest change outside of art was the fact that God stopped being the center of all European endeavor, and as such both art and philosophy were free to explore a treasure trove of ideas that hadn't been explored in those regions for centuries.
And, finally, you still haven't addressed the fact that you have no metric to measure scientific advancement and are committing the same stupidity that the original author did. Which isn't surprising, considering you're both trying to push an agenda that suits their sensibilities.
>>1374153
what is the mediterranian chalcolithic era dark age?
this meme you've got here needs to die
>>1383282
>Linking to /pol/ in an argument
You already lost friendo
>>1374153
This MeeM is getting out of control
>>1374235
Well, the Romans had arches, which allowed them to build far superior and more durable buildings, for one.
>>1381460
nope. having slaves makes easier to do things, while not having them pushes you to search a cheaper way to do things, in other words, to automate things.
if you have someone to drive you everywhere you will never learn to drive because you have no need to.
>>1374153
You don't even have to be a Christian to know this chart is bullshit
>>1381360
>>1381385
what caused the fall of the WRE was weak rulers and unchecked corruption. The armies were still a unmatched fighting force when they had competent command ex Majorian, Boniface and Aitus.
Hell Majorian came close to pretty much restoring the WRE. He only fell short because perfidious Germania assassinated him for rooting out corruption.
>>1374207
Bait pics. They are always bait pics.
>>1374235
The Romans were really better at civil engineering and administration than research and development.
Aqueducts fucking everywhere. baths, viaducts, stadiums, basilicas, roads, extremely fancy ports.
Also, large empires encourage trade, or at least it did until the Roman empire started eating itself.
>>1379189
>All those people made scientific discoveries just because they were Catholic
Durr.
>>1374235
architecture, politics, civil rights, metalurgy, exploration, organization at numbers never seen before, civil engineering, construction machinery, finance, military science, and much more.
ITT: An unscientific graph and butthurt religious people.
Just be patient while religion continues to whither into irrelevancy.
Some religions might need more help, though, like Islam. Otherwise it may destroy too much of our advancement.
>>1384355
>all those catholics prevented intelligent people from doing scientific advancements
also, some like newton even wrote they wanted to investigate, develop and discover all that because they belived it's the reason god created mankind, so that argument is valid.
>>1374228
Bait
I refuse to believe anybody is this retarded
Just gonna jump in here and say this... The dark ages were not a direct result of Christianity. The fall of Rome (and all that contributed to it) caused it. Though it was perpetuated by the Catholic Church until the end of the Renaissance and the start of the Enlightenment.
>>1384403
>le the dark ages lasted till renaissence meme
>>1384420
Anon is right,people could not do calculus or science before the Renaissance because they only had Roman Numerals and it is very hard, if not impossible to do maths using that.
>>1384632
i'm not an expert in psychology, language or telecomunications but i'm almos sure he was using the antique skill of "sarcasm"
>>1384608
Archymedos was close to done calculus.
>>1384644
It's kind of hard to tell since I've already heard this "fact" unironically used as an argument several times on this board alone.
>>1384654
No he wasn't.
This myth comes from people misunderstanding a media description of one of his works, in which he solves geometrical problems by using a method of approximation. These are problems that "today could be solved accurately using integral calculus", but that's not even remotely related to the method Archimedes used.
>>1384632
However, the introduction was slow — most fifteenth-century books of account use Roman numerals; “Arabic” numerals are not standard until the late sixteenth century
>>1384259
That it happened that way in our history doesn't mean that it's a prerequisite.
>>1384760
it's just how humans work. if we don't have the need to find a better way to do something we just stick to the old way until we have the need, are pushed to or someone else discovers it and we realise it's better
>>1384679
You do know that Principia Mathematica is almost entirely geometrical right? If such geometrical proofs kept being entertained from the time of Archimedes on, someone would have invented calculus much sooner.
>>1384774
That's why Greek and Middle Eastern primitive automation existed despite slavery not been abolished, right?
All it takes is for an autist to takes things a little too far and change the overview from "amusing" to "this might actually be profitable".
>>1384695
Anyone working with Maths and susceptible of inventing calculus would have known about them. And in fact calculus was effectively invented in the 14th century, although I don't think Arabic numerals were necessary.
>>1384801
yes, because they automated things that even slaves coudln't do.
>>1384816
Everything is about economics anon. If someone hit a gold mine, slaves would be put to work on it in order to make a profit. Do remember that slaves cost money or time and effort to get.
>>1384790
Didn't you understand what I just explained? Archimedes' method of approximation is in no way related to calculus at all, they just happen to solve the same problem in this case (although calculus does a much better job at it).
Say you want to watch some interracial cuckolding porn. Nowadays you'd use a computer for that. But then it turns out that some Roman already solved the problem of watching interracial cuckolding porn by charging people two sestertii to watch a hairy Gaul fuck his wife. That doesn't make him the inventor of the computer.
>>1384847
exactly. remember that even when they invented steamboat it was so revolucionary that some didn't wanted to belive and sticked to clippers and such because they didn't belive it would be a succes.
>>1384851
Again, Principia Mathematica uses entirely geometrical proofs.
Newton tricked everybody, because he invented Calculus but didn't reveal it, instead just exposing conclusions he had gotten through it using only the implied geometrical interpretations.
There's no reason someone couldn't have figured out such geometrical proofs if people kept poking around with Archimedes' geometrical solutions. In fact, it's almost entirely likely that it would have happened.
>>1381463
Holy shit, I thought I was the only person who had seen these horrible comics hahahahahahahahaha
"Which will you choose: the awful bad Satan or the cool and nice Jesus?"
>>1384870
Calculus isn't geometry. They're completely different fields. Calculus can be applied to geometry, but that's not what it's meant for at all. It was born from the study of mechanics and in particular problems of motion. A solution using calculus is absolutely not a "geometrical proof", it's the opposite, an analytic solution of a geometric problem.
Basically it comes down to solving a problem involving geometric shapes by pretending they're not geometric shapes but instead the areas under curves in a graph. All of that requires the concepts of mathematical function, mathematical graphs, integration, etc, which Archimedes never came close to even exploring (and which weren't invented by Newton either btw).
>>1384906
Please, go and look up how Principia Mathematica is written. Newton's proofs in it are entirely reliant on geometry only, even if he used calculus to figure them out. In fact, it's very hard to understand because nobody ever uses geometry that way anymore.
The analytic notation for what we know as calculus could be derived later from seeing the geometry in work. It's not such a jump from the geometric shapes as you think it is. What's more, the geometric solutions are already useful for engineering, so even if it were impossible to derive analytic solutions from there it still wouldn't be pointless to continue such pursuit.
And the fact that Newton used Calculus for Mechanics doesn't mean that that's where it comes from. Calculus is much more abstract and is only being applied to Mechanics because it werks.
Trust me, I'm an engineer.
>>1385079
>Trust me, I'm an engineer.
So am I, and calculus was not derived from geometry. What Newton wrote is irrelevant, he didn't "invent" calculus, and he certainly didn't invent it based on geometry.
The basic element of calculus is the mathematical function and its graphical representation. Initially, representing the movement of an object as a line on a graph. Then you can start representing other functions and variables graphically, and integrating. That's how calculus was born. This is a completely revolutionary way of thinking, and it dates back to Oresme (14th century). The next step is analytic geometry, that is to say solving geometric problems by representing them as graphs, by rethinking static objects as the abstract representation of physical movement. That dates back to Descartes (early 17th century).
Newton and Leibniz could never have advanced calculus without those prerequisites. There was a massive amount of work and revolutionary thinking between Archimedes and Newton, which Archimedes never even looked at. In fact calculus reflects a profoundly Western way of thinking about things in terms of dynamic movement and change, and it would have been completely outside the realm of Greek mentality. The Greeks were only concerned with real static physical problems (geometry in maths, static mechanics in physics) and would have found these Western abstractions absurd.
>>1384385
Religion will never dissapear.
>>1374502
>a main tenant of Christianity is that man is made in the image and likeness of God
>God is a creator
>ergo, we desire to create
>HUR DUR ONLY ATHEISTS CAN IMAGINE SHIT!
Fellate an exhaust pipe.
>>1385144
>calculus was not derived from geometry
Never claimed this. Just said that it could have happened.
>What Newton wrote is irrelevant
It is not, and you wouldn't say this if you understood my argument.
The point is that Newton was able to present many solutions using purely geometric means. Calculus is intrinsically linked with geometry. Once you figure out how to do all these calculations with geometry, it's only a matter of time before someone comes and attempts to generalize a solution, in a process that would lead him to arrive at Calculus as we know it. Or maybe they don't and we're stuck with geometric solutions forever, but that's unlikely.
In any case, the applications to Mechanics are completely irrelevant. Being able to find the areas delimited by abstract shapes is what Calculus is, and Archimedes presented a geometric method for a specific case. So even if what you say about the Greeks only thinking in Static terms is true, it has no relevance to the topic at hand. Mathematicians were driven to invent/discover Calculus because of their need to be able to problems of movement, true, but that's only the motivation and not an intrinsic part of the endeavor.
So... What relevance roman numerals has to the fucking calculus that works with formulas mostly and not in the fucking numeral arythmetics?
I always laugh at how Euro-centric this graph is.
Like, no where at all does it take into account what was going on in the Middle East, Asia, or the Americas.
I get it, I'm a Euro-ist in my own right, but for fuck's sake.
>>1384311
While you make valid points none of them contradict anything I said. These are non-controversial facts that all together lead to the Fall.
>>1376243
>>1374153
about as scientific as op's graph
