Was there really a period in time where there was almost no technological progress?
If so was it due to the Christian church?
No, but scientific progress stagnated in the eastern empire and even regressed somewhat in the west, and it was, in no small part, exacerbated by their respective churches and general Christian theology.
Technology is something that all human societies have developed since the time man started using tools and you don't really need science to progress technologically. When a unga-bunga put rock on stick, that was technological progress.
Probably by maintaining a class of intellectuals, collecting and copying all the ancient texts, founding and running schools and universities, that sort of dark age anti-science stuff.
Couldn't be more wrong.
Not only was studying the natural not forbidden, it was highly encouraged since using God-given reason to understand God's creation was considered the best way to glorify it. Natural philosophy was the second most prestigious field after theology at Catholic universities. The Church also intervened directly to break Aristotlean dogma which dominated academia and which wasn't for religious origin.
Some advances I can think of would be soap, a variety of mills, enhanced agricultural techniques, oil paints, central heating, chimneys, advances in clock-making, horse-shoes and wheelbarrows.
Also the establishment of the first Universities, and printing press if you stretch it.
Tons of stuff we take for granted more or less.
Humanists came to dominate Western academia, and they believed everything medieval (which they called "dark ages") was crap and that only ancient Greeks and Romans could know anything. So all the work of medieval scholars, in particular from the 13th and 14th century on physics, maths, and scientific philosophy, was discarded in favour of a return to a blind acceptance of Aristotle.
I'm not going to check all of these but
>Isaac Newton born 1642
>Gottfried Leibniz born 1646
Yeah you're full of it. More exaggerations to fill the "did you know there was never really a Dark Ages!?" meme.
What Newton and Leibniz are credited with is mostly creating a system of notation. But the foundation of calculus is the concept of the mathematical function. This was invented by Oresme in the 14th century. He was also the first to represent functions graphically as a curve, and he invented integration, as well as using all of those things in order to solve physical problems.
Not him, but you start with
>I'm not going to check all of these but
and end with
>More exaggerations to fill the "did you know there was never really a Dark Ages!?" meme.
For me it looks like you're the one who's full of shit here.
If there was a dogma in the history of science in Europe, it was the Greek-worship of Renaissance scholars who set back the Scientific Revolution for centuries when they disregarded the whole of medieval scholars such as Thomas Bradwardine, Jean Buridan and Nichole Oresme, because it didn't conform to the knowledge of the Greeks.
There was also that same Aristotlean dogma during much of the Middle Ages, until the Church (or at least the bishop of Paris) intervened directly in 1277 to forbid the University of Paris from teaching Aristotle's Physics as unquestionable fact. That broke the dogma and freed up scientific thought, and it made it possible for scholars like those you mentioned to do their work and for a short-lived scientific revolution to happen during the 14th century.
>19th century descriptive biology is under attack as being "divisive"
Why does the Modern Left have a monopoly on atheists who have a monopoly on science but they (the Left) cant actually support any of the scientific findings in regards to biology?
See Bruce Lahn and Robert Putnam
Rome was the primary advancer of technology, then Rome fell. At a certain point in time the [redacted]s rewrote history to call it "the Christian" dark ages implying it was due to cuckstianity, when really it was primarily due to a lack of central authority and increased daily struggles.
Christian oppression actually did contribute to the lack of advancement, in fact the Renaissance was a revival of old European Pagan tradition, art, architecture, and ways if thinking.
- Rome never advanced science or even technology in the least
- there was no such thing as Christian oppression of science
- the Renaissance was a dark age for science and interrupted the scientific revolution that had begun during the late Middle Ages
Not much was happening in Western Europe from 500 to 700, and the stuff from then to about 1000 was dodgy.
After 1000 AD, you get a slow forward march, which was interrupted somewhat by the plague.
Then in 1450 you get the printing press and shit really gets real.
This isn't really true.
Not sure what that's supposed to imply.
The printing press only plays a role in easily disseminating information. But for that to matter there needs to be important information to disseminate. From 1450 to the early 1600s there was just very little of that, aside from pre-15th century works (in that sense the printing press was probably of capital importance in preserving late medieval books from destruction, but they still didn't garner any interest until the 17th century).
>Rome was the primary advancer of technology, then Rome fell
Nope. Rome was the primary source of stagnation for technology. It's fall was in part due to new technology, and after a brief period of disruption, a new era of technological flourishing.
>Rome never advanced science or even technology in the least
>the Renaissance was a dark age for science and interrupted the scientific revolution that had begun during the late Middle Ages
the bait is strong with this one
Then what is this one always hears about Roman aqueducts, water wheels, plumbing and other projects? How did technology not progress under Rome?
Well, it did help with that whole Protestant reformation thing, which changed the culture of Europe very quickly.
I could be wrong, but I'm 90% sure some important science shit got done in the 16th century with the help of printing.
Rome excelled in one area: engineering, particularly for infrastructure. But all of it was based on knowledge already acquired by the Greeks. There was no scientific advancement in Rome, and even their engineering never progressed past the level it was at under the Republic.
If you want to look geographically at Europe, there was a long period of scientific stagnation from around the 3rd century BC to the 13th century AD.
>Then what is this one always hears about Roman aqueducts, water wheels, plumbing and other projects? How did technology not progress under Rome?
Those are large scale projects, but not new technology. Aqueducts, water wheels and plumbing all existed beforehand. What Rome had was economic control over a larger populace than ever before, which it was able and willing to impoverish to create large scale projects.
This was why there was also technological stagnation in the Roman era: Why invest in new technologies, when you can throw a bunch of slaves at the problem?
I frequently make this comparison, but it really is the case, that someday the Soviets might be admired in the same way the Romans were: commieblocks, cement bunkers and giant public works will endure, when other architecture break down, and quality of life begins to feel insignificant in comparison. No one will remember in a thousand years that Romania had good internet in the 2000s. They'll wonder why they could never build something like the Palace of the Parliament again.
There was almost no scientific progress during the 16th century. Copernicus proposed a heliocentric cosmological model, but that's about it, and it's not real science. Scientific progress only picked up again in the 17th century.
And Protestantism certainly was facilitated by the printing press, but it was mostly a force of chaos and destruction.
Yeah, because jizzing in a jar, sticking it in a pile of shit and adding blood every day to make a magical servant, is so much more enlightened and advanced than those stupid medieval shits who came before.
When you think about it, the degree to which Roman society was uninventive is truly astounding. Even their military technology was entirely of foreign origin.
Celtic armor, Celtic/Samnite shields and tactics, Iberian weapons, Greek siege equipment.
Roman society, especially post-Marian reforms was built on nothing but conquest and the enrichment of a small group of elites.
Technological advancement that could benefit the masses was seen as pointless, scientific research was seen as effeminate and weak.
but the nature and understanding of Science changed. A Paradigm shift.
When you think about it, the degree to which Roman numerals made scientific research effeminate and weak because you couldnt calculate shit with it, makes the introduction of arabic numerals the basis of all european scientific advancement
I wonder who's behind this post.
Is there a bigger meme warrior than this?
Saying that there was no, or at least reliant on greeks, scientific advancment in Rome is stupid. I could easily say that science advanced in the renaissance also mainly after europeans had found the documents and theories of the greeks after a long time of losing them... And afterwards, basically every scientific achievement relied on other scientific achievments, unless it was truly groundbreaking.
Buttom line, yeah, "axiom" is a greek word, but that alone doesn't mean anything...
>saying romans disnt have technological advancments
>comparing that claim to soviets not having technological advancemnts
>>>>>Soviets didnt have technological advancements...
Before claiming something is stupid you might want to ask yourself, can you name a single Roman scientific achievement?
>science advanced in the renaissance also mainly after europeans had found the documents and theories of the greeks after a long time of losing them
That's a myth, or rather two myths. Science didn't advance in the Renaissance, and Greek science was perfectly well known throughout the Middle Ages. The basis for science during the Renaissance was Aristotle just as it had been between the 11th and 13th centuries. Unfortunately Aristotle was wrong about practically everything, and Renaissance conservatism and dogmatic belief in Aristotlean physics is the reason there was no notable scientific progress during that time.
Dude, they completed the theory of information by themselves after cencorship in Russia prevented them from grasping the full theory, due to mechanisms that relied on western colture references to explian...
I think they were well off
This is very good short history of medieval science which talks about that. Pleasant to read and well documented.
In the Middle Ages "science" just meant knowledge or any sort. The equivalent of modern scientists was called natural philosophers, meaning those who studied the physical world. Of course they didn't yet follow the scientific method in the sense that modern scientists would, since they first had to come up with it, which they did.
>There was almost no scientific progress during the 16th century. Copernicus proposed a heliocentric cosmological model, but that's about it, and it's not real science. Scientific progress only picked up again in the 17th century.
Oh my god. You are really going to do this.
>Then what is this one always hears about Roman aqueducts, water wheels, plumbing and other projects?
The Christian Dark age Defense Force angry about the huge fucking nose-dive that Europe took after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire.
The Renaissance didn't begin in the 13th century. Between the 13th century and the spread of Renaissance humanism in the 15th century, there was a short period during which natural philosophers were permitted to question Aristotle, and did so with amazing results. See >>1426844
The 14th century scientific revolution most notably produced the foundation of modern physics and of calculus, as well as establishing all the core principles of the scientific method.
To sum up:
- 11th to 13th century: all science is based on (and shackled to) Aristotle
- 13th to 15th century: Aristotlean dogma is broken by the Church, early scientific revolution
- 15th to 17th century: humanists bring back Aristotlean dogma, science once again becomes stagnant
- since 17th century: Aristotlean dogma is broken once again, for good this time, largely thanks to the work of Galileo in repopularising 14th century science
The scientific metric shouldnt be the only one to calculate progress. Without the humanistic side of the Renaissance, the liberal revolutions of the upcoming decades wouldnt be, neither would science as it exists right now.
Modern science certainly didn't require humanism. Politics are a different subject, but Enlightenment philosophy isn't really connected to Renaissance humanism either. We have to be careful with words here, "humanism" later came to refer to different kinds of Enlightenment principles, but in the sense I'm using it here (Renaissance humanism) it refers to the movement started by Petrarch, which was about the study of ancient Greek and Roman civilisation, and came with a disregard for everything that had come since.
It really is hard to solidly connect any sort of progress to Renaissance humanism.
I don't think anyone would call a state of knowledge that was on par with the ancient Greeks and with the Renaissance "dark ages". The authority of Aristotle had its advantages, in particular thanks to his work on logic. Logic and reason stood above all else in Western academia since the early 12th century. Unfortunately the quality of his Logic also gave credit to his Physics.
I didn't mention any patterns.