Badmouthing the Middle Ages

[ceo_esq]

Randi's latest Commentary includes the story "Slovenia Backs Into The Middle Ages" (regarding the passage of legislation favorable to homeopathy), wherein Randi writes:

I hope the Slovenian government will think again before falling into this trap of accepting pseudoscience; this is an opportunity for them to show their resistance to a form of medical treatment which, though immensely popular, is nonetheless useless and belongs back in medieval days. Remember, not too long ago the process of blood-letting was standard procedure in medical practice.

Now, I'm sure Randi knows that, strictly speaking, homeopathy does not "belong back in medieval days"; that would be an anachronism. I'm sure he also knows that there's nothing distinctively medieval about phlebotomy, which flourished from antiquity until the 19th century. However, from a rhetorical perspective, Randi certainly seems to want to encourage in his readers' minds a pejorative association with the Middle Ages.

As many here know from other threads, the early history of science is an avocation of mine. We now know that the Middle Ages in Europe were an era of unprecedented advancement in scientific, technological and rational endeavors, on which rests all subsequent progress in those domains. Accordingly, part of me registers annoyance every time the Amazing One indulges in a deprecatory remark regarding "medieval days". This occurs with some frequency.

I'd be curious to hear anyone else's view on this.

[catbasket]

On Tuesday the wife's GP said she needed a blood test, wife says "do I book an appointment with the nurse?" and GP says "actually, she's a phlebotomist".

Interesting how we've gone from phlebotomy (woo, blood-letting) to phlebotomist (science, "One who draws blood for analysis or transfusion").

[Melendwyr]

We now know that the Middle Ages in Europe were an era of unprecedented advancement in scientific, technological and rational endeavors, on which rests all subsequent progress in those domains. In what domains, exactly?

None of the modern sciences date back to that period. In a trivial sense, the present is always owed to the past, but I know of few real developments in the period. The real action was in the Middle East.

[kleinjahr]

Actually there were quite a few advances in technology during the Middle Ages. For example the horse collar was invented then. Most advances were, as always, in military tech. Better armour and weapons, construction techniques for fortifications etc. There were also advances in navigation, mills (wind and water) and mining. Most likely all such were spurred by the Crusades, at least to some extent, and all of them had to deal with the religious authorities.

[Darat]

...snip... We now know that the Middle Ages in Europe were an era of unprecedented advancement in scientific, technological and rational endeavors, on which rests all subsequent progress in those domains. Accordingly, part of me registers annoyance every time the Amazing One indulges in a deprecatory remark regarding "medieval days". This occurs with some frequency.

I'd be curious to hear anyone else's view on this.

They were also a time of brutality and terribly harmful superstitions so I think they are always an appropriate period if you want to say something belongs to an period of human history where superstition and faith defined the world view of the majority of the people.

[dogjones]

This book (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/18/books/review/18weiner.html) seems to assert that the history of science has been leaping along since before, during and after the middle ages. Anyone read it?

[Mojo]

They were also a time of brutality and terribly harmful superstitions so I think they are always an appropriate period if you want to say something belongs to an period of human history where superstition and faith defined the world view of the majority of the people.And, as that great authority W. C. Fields said: Throughout the Middle Ages, the use of liquor was universal, and drunkeness was so common it was unnoticed. In fact, the reason they called it the Middle Ages was because no one was able to walk home unless they were between two other fellows.

I was the middle guy.

[ceo_esq]

In what domains, exactly?

None of the modern sciences date back to that period. In a trivial sense, the present is always owed to the past, but I know of few real developments in the period. The real action was in the Middle East.

I refer you to the "Is religion slowing us down?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=7763) thread, where sources, information and arguments on these matters are set forth in some detail.

[ceo_esq]

Actually there were quite a few advances in technology during the Middle Ages. For example the horse collar was invented then. Most advances were, as always, in military tech. Better armour and weapons, construction techniques for fortifications etc. There were also advances in navigation, mills (wind and water) and mining. Most likely all such were spurred by the Crusades, at least to some extent, and all of them had to deal with the religious authorities.

If you're interested in medieval technological advances, you might find this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1182203#post1182203) post (and some of its neighbors) of interest as well.

[Melendwyr]

Read the thread. Your conclusions are wrong at best.

[ceo_esq]

Read the thread.

I wrote and researched much of that thread. Would you care to be more specific?


Your conclusions are wrong at best.

I see. (And what are they at worst?) If you care to challenge any of the specific conclusions from the other thread, go right ahead and contribute to it. If, on the other hand, you mean that my assertions in this thread are not corroborated by evidence adduced in the other thread, then please explain precisely why not.

[kedo1981]

Come now Ceo, you’re just splitting hairs; terms like “middle ages” “dark ages” “renaissance” are just ways for historians to get a better bead on history, if he’d said “Slovenia is going back to the dark ages” how hard would it be to point out that there are unfair misconceptions about the history of that era.

[ceo_esq]

Come now Ceo, you’re just splitting hairs; terms like “middle ages” “dark ages” “renaissance” are just ways for historians to get a better bead on history, ...

I take your point. However, this is not always the case. For example, Petrarch - whose credentials as a historian are shaky at best - is often credited with creating the concept of the "Dark Ages", and in his case it was more an expression of the great poet's cultural snobbery than an aid in "getting a better bead on history". It was certainly misleading with respect to actual historical fact.


... if he’d said “Slovenia is going back to the dark ages” how hard would it be to point out that there are unfair misconceptions about the history of that era.

Not very, I grant you - but would those misconception even be acknowledged? The Commentary archive contains many examples of Randi's nonchalant use of the term "Dark Ages" - generally in a context similar to that in which he spoke of the Middle Ages in the OP quotation - even though serious contemporary historians have either considerably scaled back the term or else eschewed its use entirely, precisely because it is substantially a historical misnomer.

[Kopji]

...We now know that the Middle Ages in Europe were an era of unprecedented advancement in scientific, technological and rational endeavors, on which rests all subsequent progress in those domains. Accordingly, part of me registers annoyance every time the Amazing One indulges in a deprecatory remark regarding "medieval days". This occurs with some frequency.

I'd be curious to hear anyone else's view on this.

Science is a natural companion to the arts, and it could be the widespread suppression of art during this period that lends to use of the term 'dark'.
Even the New Advent version (can always be counted on to Catholic actions in a well-meaning light) seem a pretty dark description of the those times: Iconoclasm (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm)

To an artist those were certainly dark ages. Maybe scientific thinkers (religious or not) of the late middle ages looked back and it seemed a lonely and dark time without its old companion. :palette:

Petrarch is thought of as a humanist who signaled the beginning of the 'Renaissance' period. He was as I recall, banished as a "White Guelph". I have seen the term 'cultural snob' used to describe him before, but it seems very unfair. He was caught up in the fighting between church and state of the time he lived. It would be understandable to think of the warring factions as being disruptive to business and culture.

So in the general use I think it is appropriate to think of 'medieval' as less enlightened times than today, just as we still use the term "Renaissance" to signify a historical period of 'rebirth'.

Generalizations are by definition not precisely correct. I do not see any harm to the 'truth' of those times to describe them as more primitive than today. I do see your point though, but maybe those times look 'darker' to non religious people than they do to the pious.

[luchog]

They were also a time of brutality and terribly harmful superstitions so I think they are always an appropriate period if you want to say something belongs to an period of human history where superstition and faith defined the world view of the majority of the people.
On the other hand, empirical philosophy and the basis of the scientific method of investigation were formalized in large part during the Late Middle Ages by Franciscan friar Roger Bacon.

[kedo1981]

The Dark ages are any time when peoples butts are wahed less often than yours.

[Powa]

I hope the law doesn't go through, but it probably will. Politics and facts don't mix.

[Ed]

I suppose that definitions might be in order. A typical definition of the middle ages might be from the withdrawl of the roman legions from England early in the 5th c. (or the renunciation of the emperorship by Romulus Augustulus in 441, I think) to the invention of the printing press/discovery of the nnew world. While in the past this might have been referred to as the dark ages, the term has referred to a steadily narrower period of time. Perhaps now from the fifth c. to the Corenation of Charlemaine in 800. Even during that period art was robust as it was thru the middle ages. The greatest achievements were probably in the areas of law under Henry i and Edward I in England. As far as science/technology goes, the advances, as pointed out, tended to do with warefare: the apotheosis of castle building under Edward I, gunpowder weaponry from the 13th c. onward, the growth of professional armies, the rowel spur.

The development of printmaking was an elaboration of the etched decoration of armor in germany, in Augsburg by Danial Hopfer. But that was very late.

Science? Not really sure except that ID today owes a lot to the thinking prevalent at the time. I suppose one might argue that the development of more efficient gunpowder by observation of cause and effect might be viewed as employing the scientific method.

[kedo1981]

sorry, typo, the word is washed

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Thanks Mojo,

Start the week with a smile!

YBW

[Melendwyr]

You might as well say that, since the ancient Romans discovered the arch and concrete, science thrived in Rome. (It most certainly did not.)

[Art Vandelay]

So in the general use I think it is appropriate to think of 'medieval' as less enlightened times than today, just as we still use the term "Renaissance" to signify a historical period of 'rebirth'.That's a rather odd comparison to make, since "Renaissance" comes from the Latin for "rebirth".

[ceo_esq]

That's a rather odd comparison to make, since "Renaissance" comes from the Latin for "rebirth".

Good point. In addition, medieval Europe witnessed at least one and arguably two other "rebirths" prior to the 15th century: first and foremost, the great intellectual flowering known as the Twelfth-century Renaissance and, earlier, the Carolingian Renaissance.

[Kopji]

ceo_esq & art vandelay
Sorry I'm missing the point of both your points, I must be more dense today than usual.

I am aware Renaissance means "Rebirth"; to my thinking it seems to convey a common understanding in the course of history that something was dead or asleep preceding it.

[ceo_esq]

ceo_esq & art vandelay
Sorry I'm missing the point of both your points, I must be more dense today than usual.

I am aware Renaissance means "Rebirth"; to my thinking it seems to convey a common understanding in the course of history that something was dead or asleep preceding it.

I think all Art was saying there - and I speak subject to his correction - is that it is appropriate to use Renaissance to designate something perceived as a rebirth for the simple and compelling reason that the word itself means "rebirth". On the other hand, the somewhat more neutral etymology of medieval refers simply to an era situated between two other eras - on its face, it doesn't signify a lack of enlightenment. So Art, I infer, was objecting to the suggestion that we use medieval to mean unenlightened "just as" (i.e. on a similar basis as) we use Renaissance to mean a rebirth.

[clarsct]

Hmmmmmmmm.

Generally, the medieval period was from about 600 to about 1000/1200. It was about 600 when the first strains of feudalism were first developed, and at about 1100-1200 was when gunpowder enjoyed its first effective uses in warfare. This signalled the end of the knight as a militarily effective unit. (Actually, this happened a little earlier, around the Battle of Leeds, but traditions are hard to kill.)

The dark ages were about 400-600, or so.

I think Randi was using the term figuratively, as a giant leap BACKWARDS in the understanding of science and technology.

Not literally.

[AnotherSillyAlias]

The phrase the Dark Ages (or Dark Age) is most commonly known in relation to the European (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) Early Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Middle_Ages) (from about A.D. 476 to about 1000)


From the Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages).

[ceo_esq]

Generally, the medieval period was from about 600 to about 1000/1200.

What would you call the period between 1000/1200 and, say, 1400/1500?

[clarsct]

If you go and geta telescope and look up really fast, you might see my point flying over your heads...

And that point was: Randi is using this term figuratively, not literally.

What he appears to be saying is that he thinks that such actions are apt to take our understanding of science, the universe, and everything back 1000 years. Which lands us dab smack into 1006, the dark/middle ages by anyone's standards.

I doubt he was implying anything historical.

[Kopji]

I think all Art was saying there - and I speak subject to his correction - is that it is appropriate to use Renaissance to designate something perceived as a rebirth for the simple and compelling reason that the word itself means "rebirth". On the other hand, the somewhat more neutral etymology of medieval refers simply to an era situated between two other eras - on its face, it doesn't signify a lack of enlightenment. So Art, I infer, was objecting to the suggestion that we use medieval to mean unenlightened "just as" (i.e. on a similar basis as) we use Renaissance to mean a rebirth.


So in the general use I think it is appropriate to think of 'medieval' as less enlightened times than today, just as we still use the term "Renaissance" to signify a historical period of 'rebirth'. -kopji from earlier post

Ahhh, ok I see that now. Yup that was stupid.

I think of the two words as having been integrated into modern language in a similar manner, maybe one is more faithful to its roots than the other. I use renaissance and happen to know it means 'rebirth' without thinking of the Latin etymology. It is also a period in history, though not precisely described.

Medieval's meaning has also become abstract over time. It can be used as an adjective that describes a time we view as antiquated, but that derives that meaning from an actual historic period.

If we say a culture underwent a renaissance, that's similar to how we use medieval.

To the topic, it simply seems like Randi is using the phrase 'middle ages' in the same abstracted but common way 'medieval' has come to be used:

Etymology: New Latin medium aevum Middle Ages
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of the Middle Ages
2 : extremely outmoded or antiquated
- me·di·e·val·ly adverb

Webster's


Maybe 'stupid lite' today, I'm not sure that was any better...

[luchog]

What would you call the period between 1000/1200 and, say, 1400/1500?
Mid and Late Medieval periods.

[ceo_esq]

Just getting back to some of you.

They were also a time of brutality and terribly harmful superstitions so I think they are always an appropriate period if you want to say something belongs to an period of human history where superstition and faith defined the world view of the majority of the people.

Yet many past eras have been characterized by brutality and superstition. I might be hard pressed to argue that the 14th century was any more bedeviled by brutality and superstition than, say, the 20th century.

If polls are anything to go by, in 2006, the worldview of the majority of people is significantly influenced by superstition and/or faith. It's even possible that superstition has made a comeback since the days of the great medieval rationalists.

If you go and geta telescope and look up really fast, you might see my point flying over your heads...

And that point was: Randi is using this term figuratively, not literally.

What he appears to be saying is that he thinks that such actions are apt to take our understanding of science, the universe, and everything back 1000 years. Which lands us dab smack into 1006, the dark/middle ages by anyone's standards.



I doubt he was implying anything historical.

If Randi thought something would set our understanding back 250 years, would he be apt to say "This takes us back to the Enlightenment"? If he thought it would set us back 350 years, would he say "This takes us back to the Age of Reason"? Would a 450-year regression inspire him to evoke the Renaissance?

No, whether it's 200 years or 2,000 years, it always seems to be the Middle Ages that get the bum rap.

[Art Vandelay]

I think all Art was saying there - and I speak subject to his correction - is that it is appropriate to use Renaissance to designate something perceived as a rebirth for the simple and compelling reason that the word itself means "rebirth".Pretty much. More precisely, both "The Renaissaince" and general use of the term "renaissance" reference the Latin meaning, while general use of "medieval" references "The Medieval Period". I guess this is a common phenomenon with words: they become associated with a certain instance, so that other uses are seen as references to that particular use. Other examples would be "comrade", "apartheid", and "Pilgrim".

Of course, it doesn't help that it's generally pronounced "ren-a-sance" rather than "reh-neh-sance", which would empasize its connection to similar words like "nascent" or "nativity".

[Darat]

...snip...

Yet many past eras have been characterized by brutality and superstition. I might be hard pressed to argue that the 14th century was any more bedeviled by brutality and superstition than, say, the 20th century.

If polls are anything to go by, in 2006, the worldview of the majority of people is significantly influenced by superstition and/or faith. It's even possible that superstition has made a comeback since the days of the great medieval rationalists.

...snip..

I struggled to find a succinct phrase that separated beliefs in religion to a worldview dominated by superstition - looks like I failed.

By saying "defined the world view of the majority of the people" I meant that people (in the societies and cultures that can be linked to a phrase like "middle ages" which is of course a very Eurocentric term) no longer believe the world works by magic in the same way or degree. People on the whole do not believe that the crops grow because of the prayers, farmers today understand the underlying principles of why you need to crop rotate (e.g. what actually is exhausted/concentrated in a field), people don't believe that imps and demons are causing illness in their family, they understand that the forces such as electricity are generated by human beings and so on.

Also I think it is especially an excellent age if you want to point out that a specific treatment is nothing more then sympathetic magic that belongs to a long ago time e.g. to a time when superstition underlaid the thinking about treatment of disease and illness. It is very apt to mention that something like homeopathy (despite only being 200 years old) is in fact a throwback to the typical "dark ages/middle ages/medieval" mindset about treating disease and illness.

Could a slightly different era be used as comparison? Undoubtedly, but that is always the case. If I wanted a comparison to say genocide do I use something my readers will have at least a vague idea about or pick an obscure reference that will perhaps only be recognised by 1 out of 25 of my intended audience? His point was not about the middle ages but about a specific so-called alternative medicine that does not belong in this day and age (because we know its fundamental theory and so called action is not correct).

[epepke]

We can talk until the cows come home about whether the Middle Ages or the Dark Ages or whatever are meaningful concepts, or whether they deserve their reputation.

It's all kind of missing the point, though, because the medicine of that time certainly does deserve its reputation.

[Melendwyr]

...and the art. And the politics. And the physics. And the chemistry. And the biology. And the mathematics. And the geography. And...

[ceo_esq]

...and the art. And the politics. And the physics. And the chemistry. And the biology. And the mathematics. And the geography. And...

And ... what do you mean exactly? The reputation that medieval science enjoys among average people (poor)? The reputation medieval science enjoys among contemporary historians of early science (rather good)? The reputation medieval art enjoys among tourists (probably mixed)?

[The Odd Emperor]

Actually there were quite a few advances in technology during the Middle Ages. For example the horse collar was invented then. Most advances were, as always, in military tech. Better armour and weapons, construction techniques for fortifications etc. There were also advances in navigation, mills (wind and water) and mining. Most likely all such were spurred by the Crusades, at least to some extent, and all of them had to deal with the religious authorities.
Interesting view. Unfortunately you may be off base just slightly. Almost no progress, military, technical or social was enjoyed in the so called Middle Ages (from around 400 AD until around the mid 16th century.) Nearly every “advancement” during this period was due to rediscoveries of old writings from the earlier classical civilizations.

BTW, the horse collar was developed by the Chinese around 100 BC.

[ceo_esq]

Interesting view. Unfortunately you may be off base just slightly. Almost no progress, military, technical or social was enjoyed in the so called Middle Ages (from around 400 AD until around the mid 16th century.) Nearly every “advancement” during this period was due to rediscoveries of old writings from the earlier classical civilizations.

That is flat-out false. This is what I'm talking about when I speak of the widespread but utterly groundless misconception that the Middle Ages were a period of unrelieved intellectual and social stagnation.

I'd really like to know your sources for the claim you've made above. But before you respond, I strongly encourage you to check out this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1148164#post1148164) post and this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1182203#post1182203) one, both of which contain substantial citations to contemporary scholarship directly contradicting what you've written.

[epepke]

...and the art. And the politics. And the physics. And the chemistry. And the biology. And the mathematics. And the geography. And...

Most of that stuff is right, but the art was actually quite good. It wasn't technologically advanced, but a lot of the emotional expression was excellent. A lot of the paintings were stylistic and flat, but then again, so was Sin City.

[Melendwyr]

Most of that stuff is right, but the art was actually quite good. It wasn't technologically advanced, but a lot of the emotional expression was excellent. A lot of the paintings were stylistic and flat, but then again, so was Sin City. Well, I'm a big fan of perspective, which was lacking for quite a while. But I'll grant that art wasn't too bad. Music (which is a subset of art) was pretty good too, although a single standardized system of musical notation wasn't accepted until fairly late.

[Kopji]

Repeated episodes of iconoclasm not only by the church, but by the public would make the time deserving of the title "dark ages" all by itself.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Tommaso.Laureti.Triumph.of.Christianity.jpg/250px-Tommaso.Laureti.Triumph.of.Christianity.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

"Triumph of Christianity" by Tommaso Laureti (1530-1602), ceiling painting in the Sala di Constantino, Vatican Palace.

Ceiling title probably not intended as ironic but is nonetheless.

A snapshot of the great artistic age:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07620a.htm

"To Moslems, any kind of picture, statue, or representation of the human form is an abominable idol."

There seems to have been a dislike of holy pictures, a suspicion that their use was, or might become, idolatrous among certain Christians for many centuries before the Iconoclast persecution began (see IMAGES, VENERATION OF). The Paulicians, as part of their heresy held that all matter (especially the human body) is bad, that all external religious forms, sacraments, rites, especially material pictures and relics, should be abolished.

Eastern monasticism was steadfastly loyal to the old custom of the Church. Leo therefore joined with his Iconoclasm a fierce persecution of monasteries and eventually tried to suppress monasticism altogether...

...Meanwhile the persecution raged in the East. Monasteries were destroyed, monks put to death, tortured, or banished. The Iconoclasts began to apply their principle to relics also, to break open shrines and burn the bodies of saints buried in churches. Some of them rejected all intercession of saints. These and other points (destruction of relics and rejection of prayers to saints), though not necessarily involved in the original programme are from this time generally (not quite always) added to Iconoclasm.

...The emperor's anger against image-worshippers was strengthened by a revolt that broke out about this time in Hellas, ostensibly in favour of the icons. A certain Cosmas was set up as emperor by the rebels. The insurrection was soon crushed (727), and Cosmas was beheaded. After this a new and severer edict against images was published (730), and the fury of the persecution was redoubled.

...Pope Gregory II died in 731. He was succeeded at once by Gregory III, who carried on the defence of holy images in exactly the spirit of his predecessor.

...In 731 Gregory III held a synod of ninety-three bishops at St. Peter's in which all persons who broke, defiled, or took images of Christ, of His Mother, the Apostles or other saints were declared excommunicate. Another legate, Constantine, was sent with a copy of the decree and of its application to the emperor, but was again arrested and imprisoned in Sicily. Leo then sent a fleet to Italy to punish the pope; but it was wrecked and dispersed by a storm. Meanwhile every kind of calamity afflicted the empire; earthquakes, pestilence, and famine devastated the provinces while the Moslems continued their victorious career and conquered further territory.

Leo III died in June, 741, in the midst of these troubles, without having changed policy. His work was carried on by his son Constantine V (Copronymus, 741-775), who became an even greater persecutor of image-worshippers than had been his father. As soon as Leo III was dead, Artabasdus (who had married Leo's daughter) seized the opportunity and took advantage of the unpopularity of the Iconoclast Government to raise a rebellion. Declaring himself the protector of the holy icons he took possession of the capital, had himself crowned emperor by the pliant patriarch Anastasius and immediately restored the images. Anastasius, who had been intruded in the place of Germanus as the Iconoclast candidate, now veered round in the usual Byzantine way, helped the restoration of the images and excommunicated Constantine V as a heretic and denier of Christ. But Constantine marched on the city, took it, blinded Artabasdus and began a furious revenge on all rebels and image-worshippers (743).

The Paulicians were now treated well, while image-worshippers and monks were fiercely persecuted. Instead of paintings of saints the churches were decorated with pictures of flowers, fruit, and birds, so that the people said that they looked like grocery stores and bird shops. A monk Peter was scourged to death on 7 June, 761; the Abbot of Monagria, John, who refused to trample on an icon, was tied up in a sack and thrown into the sea on 7 June, 761; in 767 Andrew, a Cretan monk, was flogged and lacerated till he died (see the Acta SS., 8 Oct.; Roman Martyrology for 17 Oct.); in November of the same year a great number of monks were tortured to death in various ways (Martyrology, 28 Nov.). The emperor tried to abolish monasticism (as the centre of the defence of images); monasteries were turned into barracks; the monastic habit was forbidden; the patriarch Constantine II was made to swear in the ambo of his church that although formerly a monk, he had now joined the secular clergy. Relics were dug up and thrown into the sea, the invocation of saints forbidden. In 766 the emperor fell foul of his patriarch, had him scourged and beheaded and replaced by Nicetas I (766-80), who was, naturally also an obedient servant of the Iconoclast Government.

The Empress Irene was regent for her son Constantine VI (780-97), who was nine years old when his father died. She immediately set about undoing the work of the Iconoclast emperors. Pictures and relics were restored to the churches; monasteries were reopened. Fear of the army, now fanatically Iconoclast, kept her for a time from repealing the laws...


I feel like we are harvesting nits.

If the 'Catholic' version of history related above is sloppy, wouldn't it be better for Christians to get the beam out of their own eye and correct it before looking elsewhere?

Otherwise, the 'middle ages' look pretty dark from here. To present them otherwise seems like a desire to revise history more to our liking.

[ceo_esq]

Otherwise, the 'middle ages' look pretty dark from here. To present them otherwise seems like a desire to revise history more to our liking.

Yet the very idea of them being "dark" arose from a desire on the part of people living in subsequent eras to revise history more to their liking.

Any past era is prone to being viewed as "dark" in one sense or another by those who come after it. But in truth, there are plenty of reasons to consider the Middle Ages a dynamic, hopeful and rich period in European history rather than a prolonged caesura in cultural progress. Consider, inter alia, the following (all originally cited in the "Is religion slowing us down?" (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=7763) thread): "[T]he Age of Reason began in the Middle Ages."

"One can scarcely doubt that reason was applied more fruitfully in the Age of Reason than in the Middle Ages. But it would be rash to conclude that natural philosophers in the seventeenth century, and in the Age of Reason generally, were therefore 'more rational' than their medieval predecessors. Medieval scholastic theologians and natural philosophers were as dedicated to the use of reason in the disciplines they discussed and analyzed as were the scientists and natural philosophers who developed the new science in the Age of Reason. ... Modern philosophy did not have to undertake the struggle to establish the rights of reason against the Middle Ages; it was, on the contrary, the Middle Ages that established them for it, and the very manner in which the seventeenth century imagined that it was abolishing the work of preceding centuries did nothing more than continue it."

"If modern science has progressed almost unrecognizably beyond anything known or contemplated ... in the Middle Ages, modern scientists are, nonetheless, heirs to the remarkable achievements of their medieval predecessors. The idea, and the habit, of applying reason to resolve the innumerable questions about our world, and of always raising new questions, did not come to modern science from out of the void. Nor did it originate with the great scientific minds of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, from the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Descartes, and Newton. It came out of the Middle Ages ... It is a gift from the Latin Middle Ages to the modern world, a gift that makes our modern society possible[.]"

- Edward Grant


"[T]he question remains: did the Middle Ages make significant contributions to the science of the seventeenth century? The answer is unquestionably affirmative. In critical ways, medieval natural philosophers prepared the ground and paved the way for seventeenth-century scientific achievement; and when a new structure for science was built in the seventeenth century, it contained a great many medieval materials. ...

If we shift our attention to developments within specific disciplines, I believe that a persuasive case can be made for a significant measure of linguistic, conceptual and theoretical continuity between the Middle Ages and the early modern period."

- David C. Lindberg


"[By] the late 13th century Europe had seized global scientific leadership."

"The invention of invention, involving not only wide-ranging thought about technical improvements that are needed but also intercommunicating groups of technicians striving to produce them, is datable to about the middle of the thirteenth century in Europe. Invention as a movement has flourished in the West ever since then."

- Lynn White


"Modern science is not a direct outgrowth of Antiquity, without reference to the Middle Ages. It is rather the child of medieval science."

- Richard C. Dales

[Flaherty]

Well, I'm a big fan of perspective, which was lacking for quite a while. But I'll grant that art wasn't too bad. Music (which is a subset of art) was pretty good too, although a single standardized system of musical notation wasn't accepted until fairly late.

I'm not an art guy, but my favorite exhibits ever were at the Uffizi gallery in Florence. They start you off in the Middle Ages when the art was flat and lacked perspective -- 2D, basically. Then they move you into the 14th and 15th centuries when artists rediscovered how to create perspective. The coolest 3D effect I've seen was the "dome" in a church (in Siena, I think). In fact, it wasn't a dome; it was a flat ceiling painted to look as if it were a dome. I did not notice it was a flat ceiling until it was pointed out.

[Flaherty]

As many here know from other threads, the early history of science is an avocation of mine. We now know that the Middle Ages in Europe were an era of unprecedented advancement in scientific, technological and rational endeavors, on which rests all subsequent progress in those domains. Accordingly, part of me registers annoyance every time the Amazing One indulges in a deprecatory remark regarding "medieval days". This occurs with some frequency.

I'd be curious to hear anyone else's view on this.

I have not read the threads you cite elsewhere, so at the risk of beating a dead horse....

From this historical layman's perspective, generally the period 500-1000 are considered the Dark Ages (or the Middle Ages or the Age of Disco -- whatever you want to call it) is because so much grand knowledge appeared to have been lost or left moldering.

I'm sure Dark Age peasants figured out some great new things to do with gruel or crop rotation. This was all well and good. However, it doesn't change the fact that it took 15 centuries after the Pantheon's dome was built in Rome for Europe to rediscover how to repeat the trick.

Much of ancient Rome had sewers and sanitation, but the knowledge to construct such systems apparently was lost to Europe for many centuries after Rome.

Look at the mosaics, paintings, and statues from ancient Greece and Rome. Now look at the art from Europe during the Dark Ages. The latter is a pile of crap by comparison. How is it Europe forgot how to paint perspective or to sculpt things that look even marginally realistic?

It's wrong to think the Dark/Middle Ages were a period where all progress ground to a complete halt, but it's abundantly clear that a great deal of knowledge was either lost or ignored during this time.

[The Odd Emperor]

That is flat-out false. This is what I'm talking about when I speak of the widespread but utterly groundless misconception that the Middle Ages were a period of unrelieved intellectual and social stagnation.

I'd really like to know your sources for the claim you've made above. But before you respond, I strongly encourage you to check out this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1148164#post1148164) post and this (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1182203#post1182203) one, both of which contain substantial citations to contemporary scholarship directly contradicting what you've written.

Flat-out false? Pretty strong words there pilgrim!

What’s false? My contention that little progress was made in a 1000 year period between the fall of the Roman Empire to the Early Renaissance? Or my assertion that you may be incorrect about the invention of the horse collar?

BTW I never said the Middle Ages was necessarily a period of stagnation (although this too occurred in some places.) My contention is that during a period from about 400 AD until around 1400 or 1500 AD there was *little* progress in a wide range fields. There were some exceptions, the Portuguese may have discovered the New World during this period, and kept it a secret. Same with some fishermen communities in Norway. :D

But, you can take nearly any field of endeavor, from warfare to writing, from medicine to agriculture and see that very few improvements were made during that time—relative to the Renaissance and the period we live in today. I read you citations and found that even they don’t really add much weight to your argument (which I believe is something like “the term Medieval should not be synonymous with backward.” Please correct me if I’m mistaken. )

Like this passage;

"One of the few correct historical cliches [SIC] tells us that the invention of invention was the most important invention in the human past. In the Hellenistic-Roman era there was a brief but notable increase of tempo in specific areas of engineering. We have no evidence, however, that anyone of that time envisaged invention as a total project for meeting human needs. Indeed, the Roman invention of, and then abandonment of, the very useful and economical application of flattened arches to bridges shows an ominous indifference to engineering creativity."

This is almost impenetrable. The Romans didn’t invent and abandon the flattened arch (this suggests some kind predetermination.) They (or the rest of Europe) forgot about those things for a while. Waves of plague, a deadening influence of the Catholic Church, war, and a locked class structure all contributed to a slowing of progress. This is not just something I made up, in many ways medieval society was inferior to many that came before.

Or this;

"All of a sudden what has been called the Age of Faith got an entirely new vision of nature as a reservoir of vast forces to be explored, harnessed and used according to human need. Gravity had been little exploited, but by 1199 a new type of counterweight artillery had been invented so powerful that the older forms, inherited from the Romans, became obsolete. Water clocks were a nuisance because in cold water they froze, and many technicians of the thirteenth century began puttering with the idea of a purely mechanical clock activated by weights. By 1271 Robert the Englishman tells us that they had almost cracked the problem, but not quite. By about 1330 two solutions had been found - one north of the Alps and one in Italy - in the invention of two forms of escapement to regulate the flow of force through such machines. ...
Not only gravity but the force of compressed air and steam began to be investigated, and the emergence in the seventeenth century of steam engines can be shown to have a direct connection with developments four hundred years earlier. Moreover ... by 1327 cannons are found. The cannon is a one-cylinder internal-combustion engine, and all modern motors of this type are technically descended from it."

Here the author is referring to the trebuchet, first developed in the 7th century not the 10th century (probably much earlier.) They were an improvement over the Onagar or the Ballista. The “cannon” was a kind of internal combustion engine; but There is to my knowledge really no direct lineage between this and the external combustion engines which reigned supreme during the 19th century or the advent of the gasoline engine.

But one can make this same argument about the Classical societies, they too investigated steam and gravity powered devices. Water clocks are an example of this. Also, the author is making some very seeping statements about events that were (in this case) almost a hundred years and thousands of miles apart.

Cannon and trebuchet were developed in the Middle ages and were used, almost without improvement right up into the 17th century when rapid improvements in firearms took place (a quick history of early firearms can be found here http://www.researchpress.co.uk/firearms/history/armsinvention.htm)

Anyway, some of the stuff you’re citing seems revisionist at best. Sure there was some progress during the middle ages, (medium ævum ) that seems a far cry from a contention that swift and sweeping changes too place during that period--conventional history seems to differ with you.

Oh yes, If I would be inclined to site something, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages seems apropos.

[Melendwyr]

I'd love to hear how chemistry had its roots in medieval alchemy.

[Flaherty]

Anyway, some of the stuff you’re citing seems revisionist at best. Sure there was some progress during the middle ages, (medium ævum ) that seems a far cry from a contention that swift and sweeping changes too place during that period--conventional history seems to differ with you. .


Along the same thought lines, let's look at recent history. Look at how life for the typical westerner changed from 1900 to 1950. Talk about sweeping change. In less than one lifetime, the typical person added electricity, cars, refrigeration, recording devices, antibiotics, radio, flight, and telephones to their list of everyday things. These things have changed how cities are laid out, how long people live, how rapidly we communicate, and the size of our world. Even the inventions we have seen since 1950 don't really compete with them. PCs are the only real new thing since 1950 that has made fundamental changes to how we do things; everything else has been only an improvement on an earlier models.

[ceo_esq]

Flat-out false? Pretty strong words there pilgrim!

What’s false? My contention that little progress was made in a 1000 year period between the fall of the Roman Empire to the Early Renaissance? Or my assertion that you may be incorrect about the invention of the horse collar?

Specifically, the following assertions: "Almost no progress, military, technical or social was enjoyed in the so called Middle Ages (from around 400 AD until around the mid 16th century.)"
"Nearly every 'advancement' during this period was due to rediscoveries of old writings from the earlier classical civilizations."

I believe your assertion regarding the invention of the horse collar was addressed to kleinjahr, rather than to me.

BTW I never said the Middle Ages was necessarily a period of stagnation (although this too occurred in some places.) My contention is that during a period from about 400 AD until around 1400 or 1500 AD there was *little* progress in a wide range fields.

Your statement that the Middle Ages witnessed "almost no progress" in social, technical or military matters suggested that you thought they were stagnant in the (Am. Her. Dict.) sense of "Showing little or no sign of activity or advancement." Your point that this does not signify a complete absence of movement is duly noted; I don't wish to split hairs.


But, you can take nearly any field of endeavor, from warfare to writing, from medicine to agriculture and see that very few improvements were made during that time—relative to the Renaissance and the period we live in today. I read you citations and found that even they don’t really add much weight to your argument (which I believe is something like "the term Medieval should not be synonymous with backward." Please correct me if I’m mistaken. )

The truth of the foregoing statement largely comes down to the proviso “relative to the Renaissance and the period we live in today.” European societies experienced a great many important and transformative improvements during the Middle Ages, including in such areas as agriculture and warfare. The pace of such improvements has only increased over time, so naturally subsequent centuries witnessed a greater number of innovations – thanks in no small part to novel attitudes toward science, technology, and human progress generally that developed in the Middle Ages. There is greater continuity, in respect of such matters, between the Middle Ages and later periods than between the Middle Ages and everything that came before.

I agree that the term "medieval" should not be synonymous with "backward." More generally, however, the medieval era is properly be understood as an era of great relative progress and originality in a wide range of human rational, practical and cultural endeavors, from technology to education to law, and many points in between. At the same time, the Middle Ages took place a long time ago. Obviously, it doesn't compare favorably to the 21st century in many areas. Neither does the 19th century, for that matter.


This is almost impenetrable. The Romans didn't invent and abandon the flattened arch (this suggests some kind predetermination.)

I'd have to consider exactly what you mean by saying this didn't occur, in relation to exactly what Prof. White is likely to have meant when he wrote that it did occur – and on what basis – which I'm not immediately in a position to do.


They (or the rest of Europe) forgot about those things for a while.

To the extent this happened (speaking strictly of technology here), it seems to have been a late classical rather than a medieval phenomenon. As Prof. Artz points out, "None of the important skills of the Romans seems to have been lost on the Middle Ages."

Waves of plague, a deadening influence of the Catholic Church, war, and a locked class structure all contributed to a slowing of progress.

The Catholic Church appears likely to have been, if anything, a net stimulus to progress, for reasons discussed at length in the other thread. At the very least, there is no evidence it was not a net “deadening influence”.


This is not just something I made up, in many ways medieval society was inferior to many that came before.

In many ways? To many that came before? Ill try to save us time by asking you, as a starting point, to list a half-dozen criteria according to which Western European society in, say, 1300 was inferior to the one in 300. (Unless that happens not to be one of the many examples you had in mind.) No one here is asserting that medieval European civilization did not have its negative aspects even in comparison to classical antiquity - particularly in the centuries immediately following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, the numerous improvements make it difficult to argue that it was inferior overall to its historical antecedents.


Here the author is referring to the trebuchet, first developed in the 7th century not the 10th century (probably much earlier.) They were an improvement over the Onagar or the Ballista.

More specifically, by "a new type of counterweight artillery", Prof. White is referring to a certain kind of trebuchet powered purely by gravity (as opposed to the traction or hybrid variety). I don't know why you mention the 10th century. Prof. White's statement is, at any rate, corroborated by other sources. "By 1199" – the earliest absolutely verifiable instance of the use of such artillery – the counterweight-only trebuchet had been invented. I'm not sure if you had some other point to make in this connection.


Anyway, some of the stuff you're citing seems revisionist at best.

I'm not surprised that it sounds revisionist to you, but the fact is that scholarly knowledge and understanding of these matters has evolved greatly in the past few decades. It simply hasn't yet trickled down very far, apparently.


Sure there was some progress during the middle ages, (medium ævum ) that seems a far cry from a contention that swift and sweeping changes too place during that period--conventional history seems to differ with you.

By "conventional history," I assume you mean the conventional popular understanding of history, rather than the current conventions among experts in the field. You see, what "conventional history" differs with are just about all the recent major historians I know - and I do my best to keep up in this area - specializing in the history of science and technology (as well as other specialties) during the relevant period. This doesn't seem to bother the historians too much, so perhaps I shouldn’t let it bother me.

[Roboramma]

To those arguing that the middle ages were a time of stagnation, don't you think it makes more sense to compare them with previous times than with later ones?

The development of the scientific method, as well as an inheritance of all the science of millenia before, is what has allowed science to progress so swiftly in the last few hundred years. That middle ages simply didn't have that advantage. If they were stagnant, surely they must be shown to be stagnant in comparison to classical (ie, Greek and roman) civilization?

How much progress was being made during that time? Was it faster or slower than during the middle ages? If knowledge was lost during the middle ages only to be later rediscovered, is this something that tended to happen frequently in all societies before the development of the printing press, or was it specific to the middle ages?

In other words, were the middle ages especially backward relative to the times that came before, or are we only comparing them to the modern day? And if so, why doesn't the classical period merit this comparison?

I don't know that much about history, so I don't know the answers to those questions. But I think they important to this discussion.

Oh, and just to be clear, I think Randi was right to say what he did, as Darat pointed out, it was comparison between homeopathy and medieval medical practices and way of thinking. Fair enough, considering that in order to make a point he has to use things that people are familiar with.

[Kopji]

Yet the very idea of them being "dark" arose from a desire on the part of people living in subsequent eras to revise history more to their liking.

Any past era is prone to being viewed as "dark" in one sense or another by those who come after it. But in truth, there are plenty of reasons to consider the Middle Ages a dynamic, hopeful and rich period in European history rather than a prolonged caesura in cultural progress...

We do not disagree on this point. Earlier historians had a more humanist agenda and saw the medieval times as dark, but now modern historians can describe them as dynamic and rich. Is our 'new understanding' due to new historic evidence that has emerged to refute the earlier characterizations, or have we the viewers of history changed?

If we were to truly assess the middle ages we would need to know what might have been without all the inspired destruction. Since we can't do that, 'badmouthing the middle ages' or not seems mostly due to a point of view, not historic facts.

To digress a little, I offer the fourth crusade. (Fordham University has a nice collection of primary texts and historic accounts.) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html

In a nutshell: A holy crusade heads off to conquer Egypt and instead are hijacked by Venice to attack their enemy Zara. The crusader army does that with ease, and is eventually sent on to sack Constanople, a city of great art and culture. Venice rises to power and their trade partner Egypt is spared a crusade.

It seems impossible in reading the story not to see the parallels for our own time: Religious zeal turned into a blunt tool for cynical political ends. Has anything really really changed much in today's world? No. We are indeed the products of those times.

Condemning them as dark times might be an uncomfortable condemnation of what we still do today (or want to do).

[Darat]

To go back to the OP, I've seen nothing presented in all this discussion that indicates to me that saying homeopathy belongs in the dark ages (call it what you will) was an inappropriate statement. Its theory and its practice is something that would have been at home with the gernal miondset that prevailed at that time (especially in regards to illness and treatments).

Indeed the comparison even holds if science was going through the most fantastic expansion in all of human history since homeopathy would have been left behind in such a scientific revolution.

Which ever way you cut it saying homeopathy belongs to the dark ages is a good way of getting over to the general public that an idea is something that belongs to an age of superstition.

[The Odd Emperor]

[quote=ceo_esq;1376903]


Your statement that the Middle Ages witnessed "almost no progress" in social, technical or military matters suggested that you thought they were stagnant in the (Am. Her. Dict.) sense of "Showing little or no sign of activity or advancement." Your point that this does not signify a complete absence of movement is duly noted; I don't wish to split hairs.
The various definitions and interpretations become an endless quagmire in any case. “Almost no” is very nearly an absolute and when dealing with history it’s not a good idea to think in absolutes.


I very nearly stand corrected. :)

The truth of the foregoing statement largely comes down to the proviso “relative to the Renaissance and the period we live in today.” European societies experienced a great many important and transformative improvements during the Middle Ages, including in such areas as agriculture and warfare. The pace of such improvements has only increased over time, so naturally subsequent centuries witnessed a greater number of innovations – thanks in no small part to novel attitudes toward science, technology, and human progress generally that developed in the Middle Ages. There is greater continuity, in respect of such matters, between the Middle Ages and later periods than between the Middle Ages and everything that came before.

I agree that the term "medieval" should not be synonymous with "backward." More generally, however, the medieval era is properly be understood as an era of great relative progress and originality in a wide range of human rational, practical and cultural endeavors, from technology to education to law, and many points in between. At the same time, the Middle Ages took place a long time ago. Obviously, it doesn't compare favorably to the 21st century in many areas. Neither does the 19th century, for that matter.


True, however the moniker “the middle ages tended to be backward and ignorant (which is silly of course, ages cannot be ignorant”) is certainly accurate from a 21st century viewpoint which I believe *is* the point of the argument. It is certain that some progress was made in the middle ages in some areas. I think (and most historians that I’ve encountered seem to echo this) that one of the significant events of the middle age was also a turning away from the older traditions which was caused by (among other things) a fragmentation of previous government/religious institutions.


It’s a vast oversimplification to say "well the Catholic Church caused the dark ages to happen" (and I really hate the term dark ages but, that’s a whole ‘nother topic.) but, there is a very good reason why it appears to be so. The Church ended up permeating and stabilizing society to an extent which is hard to comprehend today. Stabilizing as in discouraging change.

One euphemism I’ve utilized is the term “medieval science” when describing conclusion driven "science" as apposed to real evedence driven science. It was not really until the very end of the Middle Ages that science and engineering became less hampered by what was conventional wisdom. We then began to see very rapid progress in a wide range of fields. Certainly this is rather oversimplified but, history is a process whereupon complex interactions are rendered down so as to be more comprehensible.



I'd have to consider exactly what you mean by saying this didn't occur, in relation to exactly what Prof. White is likely to have meant when he wrote that it did occur – and on what basis – which I'm not immediately in a position to do.
I may have been speaking of the sweeping way the statement read. I’m certainly not in a position to say someone is flatly incorrect, however I suspect (as I mentioned) that absolute statements when dealing with such things is not such a good idea.


To the extent this happened (speaking strictly of technology here), it seems to have been a late classical rather than a medieval phenomenon. As Prof. Artz points out, "None of the important skills of the Romans seems to have been lost on the Middle Ages."
Perhaps not lost, misplaced maybe? Lots and lots of documents were lost, artistic prowess, military technology all suffered setbacks (for lack of a better term) at the beginning of the Middle Ages and did not really recover until much later.

The Catholic Church appears likely to have been, if anything, a net stimulus to progress, for reasons discussed at length in the other thread. At the very least, there is no evidence it was not a net “deadening influence”.

I suspect you actually mean “there is no evidence that it *was* a net deadening influence.”..

It was a stimulus so long as the progress enhanced the Church in some way. For example, during the Middle Ages we find almost no music that was not secular in nature. The advent of non-secular music is a seminal event in the Middle Ages, well documented. The lack of perspective in painting, the almost complete lack of non-secular artistic expression in almost every other area strongly suggests that the Church did indeed have an overwhelming influence in Medieval Culture.


More specifically, by "a new type of counterweight artillery", Prof. White is referring to a certain kind of trebuchet powered purely by gravity (as opposed to the traction or hybrid variety). I don't know why you mention the 10th century. Prof. White's statement is, at any rate, corroborated by other sources. "By 1199" – the earliest absolutely verifiable instance of the use of such artillery – the counterweight-only trebuchet had been invented. I'm not sure if you had some other point to make in this connection.
I’m not aware of a traction or hybrid trebuchet, I don’t know what one would be like—
sorry I’ve only operated and repaired gravity powered ones so I can’t call myself an expert. The term (to my poor understanding) is that of a specific form of gravity powered rock thrower.



I'm not surprised that it sounds revisionist to you, but the fact is that scholarly knowledge and understanding of these matters has evolved greatly in the past few decades. It simply hasn't yet trickled down very far, apparently.



Certainly my history department doesn’t teach it that way, I am actually aware that some of this is rumbling around the academic community but it’s not exactly mainstream and has not tricked down into the vernacular yet.

By "conventional history," I assume you mean the conventional popular understanding of history, rather than the current conventions among experts in the field. You see, what "conventional history" differs with are just about all the recent major historians I know - and I do my best to keep up in this area - specializing in the history of science and technology (as well as other specialties) during the relevant period. This doesn't seem to bother the historians too much, so perhaps I shouldn’t let it bother me.
Good for you! Specializing in a wide range of fields is always a good thing! :D

[The Odd Emperor]

To those arguing that the middle ages were a time of stagnation, don't you think it makes more sense to compare them with previous times than with later ones?

The development of the scientific method, as well as an inheritance of all the science of millenia before, is what has allowed science to progress so swiftly in the last few hundred years. That middle ages simply didn't have that advantage. If they were stagnant, surely they must be shown to be stagnant in comparison to classical (ie, Greek and roman) civilization?

How much progress was being made during that time? Was it faster or slower than during the middle ages? If knowledge was lost during the middle ages only to be later rediscovered, is this something that tended to happen frequently in all societies before the development of the printing press, or was it specific to the middle ages?

In other words, were the middle ages especially backward relative to the times that came before, or are we only comparing them to the modern day? And if so, why doesn't the classical period merit this comparison?

I don't know that much about history, so I don't know the answers to those questions. But I think they important to this discussion.

Oh, and just to be clear, I think Randi was right to say what he did, as Darat pointed out, it was comparison between homeopathy and medieval medical practices and way of thinking. Fair enough, considering that in order to make a point he has to use things that people are familiar with.

Randi is speaking in the vernacular and so, medieval is congruent with backward. That’s not an improper usage to his audience.

Greek and Roman society didn’t seem to be progressing any quicker than Medieval society. Perhaps slower by some standards. The big difference is that Medieval society was unaware of the societies which came before while the Romans had some understanding of Greek history and culture.

This is not to say that they were did not know that the classical societies existed; simply they didn’t really understand them. There was a tendency to dump much of the religious underpinnings although a surprising amount of the Roman pantheon carried over into the Roman Catholic Church.

But, archeology did not exist and many assumed Greek and Roman society was more or less the same as their own. This can be seen in some of the depictions of events in the Classical Period, many garb people in the contemporary clothing of the time that the artist lived in.

[ceo_esq]

True, however the moniker “the middle ages tended to be backward and ignorant (which is silly of course, ages cannot be ignorant”) is certainly accurate from a 21st century viewpoint which I believe *is* the point of the argument.

I agree – no one could reasonably dispute the strict accuracy of your statement here – but surely you must acknowledge that medieval European civilization is often singled out in the popular imagination (and certainly with some frequency by Mr. Randi) as an epitome of backwardness, inhibited development, irrationality, superstition and so forth. Moreover, there seems to be a popular sentiment – the currency of which Randi undeniably promotes - that there was something specifically about the Middle Ages – some intrinsic and perhaps vaguely culpable dimension(s) of the culture, rather than the accident of following on the heels of the Empire’s breakup – that accounts for the ostensibly characteristic ignorance and irrationality attributed to the age.

So while your specific point here is accurate, the notion to which I’m referring is fundamentally inaccurate, and unfortunately characterizations of medieval culture as especially ignorant tend to arise from and reinforce (often consciously) the latter. To this extent, I think the term medieval is overdue for some rehabilitation. People don’t customarily refer to the Middle Ages as backward and ignorant merely for the banal reason that what constitutes progress in one era often seems modest or unimpressive by the standards of people living many centuries later. Rather, people use the reference because they tend actually to believe that medieval society experienced very little progress even from the standpoint of a medieval observer.


It is certain that some progress was made in the middle ages in some areas.

One may bicker over semantics, but I have argued here and elsewhere that significant progress was made in a significant number of areas.


It’s a vast oversimplification to say "well the Catholic Church caused the dark ages to happen"…

To my mind, it’s not just an oversimplication. Indeed, I can’t think of any meaningful sense in which it could arguably be more true than false.


… but, there is a very good reason why it appears to be so. The Church ended up permeating and stabilizing society to an extent which is hard to comprehend today. Stabilizing as in discouraging change.

Yet the Church underwrote - certainly materially but, more importantly, intellectually and spiritually – so many of the important advances during this era that I think to say it generally discouraged change is seriously misleading. The historians I cited earlier addressed this specific point.

Perhaps not lost, misplaced maybe?

I interpreted the author to mean that, with respect to the useful skills to which the author was referring, there was substantial continuity.


I suspect you actually mean “there is no evidence that it *was* a net deadening influence.”

Good catch. That was a typo arising from a last-second rearrangement of the paragraph.


It was a stimulus so long as the progress enhanced the Church in some way. For example, during the Middle Ages we find almost no music that was not secular in nature. The advent of non-secular music is a seminal event in the Middle Ages, well documented. The lack of perspective in painting, the almost complete lack of non-secular artistic expression in almost every other area strongly suggests that the Church did indeed have an overwhelming influence in Medieval Culture.

Certainly. However, since the Church took such a broad view of what was useful to the welfare of the people of God, almost every area of practical utility or learning was at least theoretically, and very often in fact, encouraged by the Church.


I’m not aware of a traction or hybrid trebuchet, I don’t know what one would be like— sorry I’ve only operated and repaired gravity powered ones so I can’t call myself an expert. The term (to my poor understanding) is that of a specific form of gravity powered rock thrower.

Then you have more practical familiarity than I. (Could you get a listing in the Yellow Pages under ”Trebuchets, Repair and Maintenance”?) At any rate, simply put, a traction trebuchet is the oldest kind, operated by pulling on ropes, and a hybrid (as you might expect) is one that also employs some counterweights to assist in the pulling.


Certainly my history department doesn’t teach it that way, I am actually aware that some of this is rumbling around the academic community but it’s not exactly mainstream and has not tricked down into the vernacular yet.

The rumblings date back several decades. My impression is that the major modern figures in the field of medieval intellectual and scientific/technological history (of which Prof. Grant and the late Prof. White are but two) more or less support this understanding. I would characterize it as mainstream within the discipline (though perhaps among historians specializing in other matters), but obviously not among laymen.


Good for you! Specializing in a wide range of fields is always a good thing! :D

I’m not sure what that means, or if it is a good thing. But at any rate, when I said “as well as other specialties” I was referring to the fact that popular wisdom about the Middle Ages is challenged by historians in a wide range of specialties relevant to the era – not that I am able to keep up, obviously with all of these. When I said that I try to remain current, on the other hand, I was referring to major publications dealing with medieval science and technology specifically. That’s purely an avocation. Formally speaking, as you might already know, my true specialized discipline is law, with a particular academic interest in the development of the Western legal tradition (including - no surprise here - during the Middle Ages).

[Melendwyr]

Translation:

People believe that the Church helped prevent social and technological development in the Middle Ages, and I dislike it when people say things that can be construed as a criticism of the Church. Therefore, I will claim that the Middle Ages were a time of great scientific development which modern science is founded on, and I will quote other revisionist historians to lend credibility to this position.

See? ceo_esq is really no harder to speak than Politicianese or Lawyerspeak.

[ceo_esq]

Translation:

People believe that the Church helped prevent social and technological development in the Middle Ages, and I dislike it when people say things that can be construed as a criticism of the Church. Therefore, I will claim that the Middle Ages were a time of great scientific development which modern science is founded on, and I will quote other revisionist historians to lend credibility to this position.

See? ceo_esq is really no harder to speak than Politicianese or Lawyerspeak.

It has been suggested to you in the past, Melendwyr, that you stick to speaking for yourself, but you seem to require periodic encouragement in that area. Once you've mastered the urge to ascribe, capriciously, opinions and motives to other posters, you might practice exercising more circumspection in expounding on topics with which you have limited familiarity.

[Melendwyr]

Translation:

That was uncomfortably accurate. Better shift attention to the person who pointed out my motives.

[jjramsey]

Translation:

That was uncomfortably accurate. Better shift attention to the person who pointed out my motives.

Melendwyr, as a skeptic, you should be well aware that there is often a divide between the layperson's conventional wisdom on the topic and the actual scholarly consensus, yet you choose to trust conventional wisdom over the experts in the field. Instead of "translations," why don't you actually put forth some evidence? That's supposed to be the common currency in these forums.

[Darat]

Melendwyr, as a skeptic, you should be well aware that there is often a divide between the layperson's conventional wisdom on the topic and the actual scholarly consensus, yet you choose to trust conventional wisdom over the experts in the field. Instead of "translations," why don't you actually put forth some evidence? That's supposed to be the common currency in these forums.

Lets not forget the OP point, I still maintain no one has put forward any evidence that indicates that homeopathy isn't of a type of "treatment" that belongs more in an age of superstition then one "post enlightenment".

Given the theories of disease and the available treatments back then I believe Randi's statement was both illustrative and accurate.

[ceo_esq]

Lets not forget the OP point, I still maintain no one has put forward any evidence that indicates that homeopathy isn't of a type of "treatment" that belongs more in an age of superstition then one "post enlightenment".

What was the evidence, again, that (for example) the 14th century was a time of superstition and the 18th century wasn't?

I see no reason to think that if homeopathy had arisen in the 14th century, the natural philosophers of the day would (all other things being equal) necessarily have approached the subject less critically and rationally than 18th-century scientists.


Given the theories of disease and the available treatments back then I believe Randi's statement was both illustrative and accurate.

The prevailing medieval theories of disease were generally incorrect, but they were not what I'd call superstitious or occult, if that's what you're thinking. Evil spirits and the like were not part of standard medieval medical theory or practice; concepts such as the humours were.

[Darat]

What was the evidence, again, that (for example) the 14th century was a time of superstition and the 18th century wasn't?

I see no reason to think if homeopathy had arisen in the 14th century, the natural philosophers of the day would (all other things being equal) necessarily have approached the subject less critically and rationally than 18th-century scientists.



It doesn't matter if the 18th century was or was not a superstitious age as long as the Dark Ages were for the figure of speech to be supportable. The 14th century certainly was so therefore comparing a superstitious belief (homeopathy) to beliefs that prevailed then is reasonable.


The prevailing medieval theories of disease were generally incorrect, but they were not what I'd call superstitious or occult, if that's what you're thinking. Evil spirits and the like were not part of standard medieval medical theory or practice; concepts such as the humours were.

I don't agree with you about the evil spirits and "generally incorrect" - all their theories were incorrect however I'm not going to try and support my belief on that point so take it as nothing more then unsubstantiated belief.

The reason why I won't try to support it is because again it has nothign to do with the comment that Randi made. Homeopathy's "theory" has more to do with "theories" such as humours then anything in the modern world so again it supports that Randi's comparison was a good one to use.

Seriously ceo_esq if Randi had made one of the claims that you claim state to be erroneous about the dark ages and that was central for his comparison to work you'd have a point however he didn't so your objectionsabout him using the phrase are irrelevant to what Randi was actually saying. You have read more into his comment then he put into it.

Homeopathy is something that belongs in the dark ages not the 21st century.

[Melendwyr]

Melendwyr, as a skeptic, you should be well aware that there is often a divide between the layperson's conventional wisdom on the topic and the actual scholarly consensus, yet you choose to trust conventional wisdom over the experts in the field. ceo_esq is not an expert in the field, and neither are his sources.

If I want to learn about atrocities committed by the Byzantine Empire, I don't go to the Greek Orthodox. If I want to learn about atrocities committed by the Holy Roman Empire, I don't go to the Vatican. Experts with vested interests in misrepresenting their field of expertise aren't truthworthy.

ceo_esq is a non-expert with a vested interest in misrepreseting his field of non-expertise. Guess how much weight his statements carry?

[ceo_esq]

It doesn't matter if the 18th century was or was not a superstitious age as long as the Dark Ages were for the figure of speech to be supportable. The 14th century certainly was so therefore comparing a superstitious belief (homeopathy) to beliefs that prevailed then is reasonable.

OK so far as it goes, although there is certainly support for the argument that the early 21st century is also a superstitious age (witness the popularity of homeopathy, among many other things), such that the basis for singling out the Middle Ages is unclear.


Seriously ceo_esq if Randi had made one of the claims that you claim state to be erroneous about the dark ages and that was central for his comparison to work you'd have a point however he didn't so your objectionsabout him using the phrase are irrelevant to what Randi was actually saying. You have read more into his comment then he put into it.

I've read Randi's commentaries for a long time and know that his concept of the Middle Ages carries much erroneous baggage. These ideas are never far from the surface when he alludes to that historical period, so in one sense, any time he does so there really is more to his statement than technically meets the eye. But at any rate, bear in mind that I was merely using his apparently innocuous comment as a point of departure for a broader discussion. The fact that he didn't articulate all of these matters is not the point, so let's not let the face value of his comment this time absolutely dictate the scope of the thread.


Homeopathy is something that belongs in the dark ages not the 21st century.

In one sense, of course, homeopathy belongs in no age at all, since it is equally ineffective in any age. Yet what are the criteria for "belonging"? Homeopathy enjoys tremendous and broad-based popularity around the world these days. Clearly there exists some kind of affinity between homeopathy and the early 21st century zeitgeist, and if we can't admit even this obvious truth, we're simply not being honest with ourselves. Perhaps criticizing homeopathy as not belonging in the 21st century misses the point; certainly it is at least as valid, and very possibly more so, to criticize the 21st century for being an age where homeopathy so easily finds itself comfortably at home. Yet I digress.


ceo_esq is not an expert in the field, and neither are his sources.

None of us, I have the impression, is an expert in the field under discussion, so it is natural to invoke arguments from authority. I go to a great deal of trouble to ensure that the arguments from authority I employ are valid ones, and that means, inter alia, that I will not proffer as authoritative the opinions of people who do not possess relevant, authentic expertise.

Let's consider just the few people whom I've cited in this thread: Edward Grant (http://www.indiana.edu/~alldrp/members/grant.html), professor emeritus of history and philosophy of science at Indiana University; recipient of the Sarton Medal and past president of the History of Science Society.

Lynn White, longtime professor of history at UCLA and founder of the Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies there.

David Lindberg (http://histsci.wisc.edu/people/faculty/lindberg.shtml), professor emeritus of the history of science at the University of Wisconsin; recipient of the Sarton Medal and past president of the History of Science Society.

Richard Dales, professor of medieval history at the University of Southern California.

Frederick Artz (http://www.oberlin.edu/archive/holdings/finding/RG30/SG175/biography.html), longtime professor of medieval intellectual history at Oberlin College.

Do you have a serious challenge to mount to the expert credentials of these people, or were you just blathering when you denied that they were experts in their field?


If I want to learn about atrocities committed by the Byzantine Empire, I don't go to the Greek Orthodox. If I want to learn about atrocities committed by the Holy Roman Empire, I don't go to the Vatican. Experts with vested interests in misrepresenting their field of expertise aren't truthworthy.

Ah, so now they are experts in their field, just ones whose impartiality is suspect. Again, if you have a serious and well-supported objection to raise against these scholars, based on some identifiable "vested interest in misrepresenting" matters, by all means share the details with us.


ceo_esq is a non-expert with a vested interest in misrepreseting his field of non-expertise.

What, pray tell, is the nature and origin of this supposed "vested interest" I possess? Be specific.

[Melendwyr]

Let's not forget, ceo_esq is the poster who defended the Catholic Church's persecution of Galileo. And I don't mean defended in the "Devil's Advocate" sense. Nor in the "everyone's entitled to representation" sense.

[ceo_esq]

Let's not forget, ceo_esq is the poster who defended the Catholic Church's persecution of Galileo. And I don't mean defended in the "Devil's Advocate" sense. Nor in the "everyone's entitled to representation" sense.

That's it? That's your response to the questions put to you?

With respect to Galileo, I believe all I've done was to try to examine and, where appropriate, correct specific historical claims as and when they came up in the pertinent threads. My chief method, as usual, was to survey the research of reputable historical authorities and present their findings for everyone's consideration, and my only motivation was the prospect of arriving at the best possible understanding of the truth. I have no conceivable interest in excusing any party to the Galileo affair, but I do have an interest - which you are perfectly entitled not to share - in knowing what the facts were.

At any rate, I'm not sure how you would practically differentiate a defensive argument submitted in the senses you've identified (whatever they mean) from some other kind - and I'm a professional advocate. Once again, you seem to be fancifully attributing motives and opinions to other people. This practice so often leads you to bark up the wrong tree, as it were, that you should seriously consider curtailing it.

[Darat]

OK so far as it goes, although there is certainly support for the argument that the early 21st century is also a superstitious age (witness the popularity of homeopathy, among many other things), such that the basis for singling out the Middle Ages is unclear.

...snip...

Again doesn't really matter if it is true or not (and I have explained earlier why I contest that interpretation).

Unless you can show that medieval/dark ages/middle ages medicine and attitudes toward illness and disease were based on the proved scientific theories that modern medicine is then it is still a valid statement to say

"Homeopathy belongs to the dark ages not the 21st century".

So in absence of you providing such evidence I still maintain that Randi's use of the phrase in the context he used it was an effective way to convey his point to his general audience (and does not rely on what you consider to be erroneous beliefs about that period of time).

[Melendwyr]

The Middle Ages were home to bleeding, leeches, searing wounds with boiling oils or hot iron, and drilling holes into people's heads to let demons out.

And that was the quality medical treatment. You don't really want to know what the bad treatment was like.

I'd say homeopathy fits in just fine.

[ceo_esq]

The Middle Ages were home to bleeding, leeches, searing wounds with boiling oils or hot iron, and drilling holes into people's heads to let demons out.

And that was the quality medical treatment. You don't really want to know what the bad treatment was like.

I'd say homeopathy fits in just fine.

In fairness, phlebotomy (therapeutic bleeding) was even more at home in much later eras; in fact, the popularity of the procedure probably peaked not in the Middle Ages but around the late 18th century - which we might call the practice's "golden age".

Trepanation ("drilling holes into people's heads") was also practiced in the Middle Ages, but generally had nothing to do with "letting demons out". Medieval medicine was primitive by modern standards, but it was not based on the occult.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3714992.stm) the interested reader can find a fascinating news article from the BBC discussing medieval trepanation. It relates the 2004 discovery of the remains of an 11th-century man in Yorkshire who is believed to have survived a crushing blow to the head, thanks to a timely trepanning procedure. According to a scientist quoted in the article, the discovery helps solidify a picture of medieval medicine that "is a world away from the notions that Anglo-Saxon healers were all about spells and potions."

Does homeopathy have a great many points in common with trepanation (which at least occasionally works), or for that matter with phlebotomy, leeching, or the other practices you mentioned?

And may we hope for answers to our previous queries regarding expert credentials, conflicts of interest, and so forth?

[The Odd Emperor]

In fairness, phlebotomy (therapeutic bleeding) was even more at home in much later eras; in fact, the popularity of the procedure probably peaked not in the Middle Ages but around the late 18th century - which we might call the practice's "golden age".

Trepanation ("drilling holes into people's heads") was also practiced in the Middle Ages, but generally had nothing to do with "letting demons out". Medieval medicine was primitive by modern standards, but it was not based on the occult.

Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3714992.stm) the interested reader can find a fascinating news article from the BBC discussing medieval trepanatioThen. It relates the 2004 discovery of the remains of an 11th-century man in Yorkshire who is believed to have survived a crushing blow to the head, thanks to a timely trepanning procedure. According to a scientist quoted in the article, the discovery helps solidify a picture of medieval medicine that "is a world away from the notions that Anglo-Saxon healers were all about spells and potions."

Does homeopathy have a great many points in common with trepanation (which at least occasionally works), or for that matter with phlebotomy, leeching, or the other practices you mentioned?

And may we hope for answers to our previous queries regarding expert credentials, conflicts of interest, and so forth?
Trepanning is an extremely old procedure, it’s called one of the first forms of surgery—well pre dating the middle ages. No one really knows why people were trepanned but many skulls have been found with well healed marks, suggestion people survived the process.

I read a really good correlation to trepanning somewhere (must find the article.) It suggested that trepanning was a therapeutic process to extract parasites. There is a certain kind of worm that is apparently common to sheep. It burrows into the head cavity causing all kinds of havoc. Trepanning was a procedure to cure the condition in humans. This page (http://www.trepanationguide.com/trepanation_in_ancient_times.htm)
briefly mentions the parasite idea.

There’s actually some group running around doing it today as an elective surgery. They say that getting another hole in your head makes you a better person!

[Melendwyr]

Regardless of its earliest forms, it was still used in the Middle Ages as a treatment for madness.

[The Odd Emperor]

Regardless of its earliest forms, it was still used in the Middle Ages as a treatment for madness.
The demons have to get out somehow!

[The Odd Emperor]

Originally Posted by ceo_esq

I’m not sure what that means, or if it is a good thing. But at any rate, when I said “as well as other specialties” I was referring to the fact that popular wisdom about the Middle Ages is challenged by historians in a wide range of specialties relevant to the era – not that I am able to keep up, obviously with all of these. When I said that I try to remain current, on the other hand, I was referring to major publications dealing with medieval science and technology specifically. That’s purely an avocation. Formally speaking, as you might already know, my true specialized discipline is law, with a particular academic interest in the development of the Western legal tradition (including - no surprise here - during the Middle Ages).
It’s mostly a joke.

Well I’m please to meet you! I’m an itinerant geek with History major. My only real claim to knowledge is hundred of hours doing “experimental history,” mostly in the late Roman era but others from time to time. (I was gone most of the weekend to attend a massed combat practice.) Oh and lots of books!

Seriously. I take your point that the Middle Ages probably get a bad rap but. I’m still not so sure that at least some of it is deserved.

As far as semantics? Saying something belongs in the dark ages remaines a descriptor that most people understand. I don’t know what would be better. “Your homeopathic medicine belongs in a far off time where people rode around on horses” just doesn’t cut it.

[ceo_esq]

Well I’m please to meet you!

Likewise!


Seriously. I take your point that the Middle Ages probably get a bad rap but. I’m still not so sure that at least some of it is deserved.

Humankind being what it is, I'm inclined to say that some of any bad reputation is unmerited and some of any good reputation is unmerited. Still, one likes to get one's facts straight.

[The Odd Emperor]

Likewise!




Humankind being what it is, I'm inclined to say that some of any bad reputation is unmerited and some of any good reputation is unmerited. Still, one likes to get one's facts straight.

Yes but we are talking about history here, an *interpretation* of events. History is not factual, it cannot be. It’s subjective. Usually the history of a culture (like the European Medieval culture) reflects more the writers of the history than the actual events themselves. Unless we can find some way to directly experience events in the past, we are stuck with a wishy-washy subjective system of accounts.

[Kopji]

While at the Mayo Clinic a few years ago I was startled to see saw a large jar labeled "leeches". They are still used in medicine today. linky (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-07-07-leeches-maggots_x.htm)

I also remember reading a paper on the benefits of maggot therapy but I'm too grossed out to look it up again.

Hi Odd Emperor. yeah.
hey happy birthday!

[Mongrel]

While at the Mayo Clinic a few years ago I was startled to see saw a large jar labeled "leeches". They are still used in medicine today. linky (http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2004-07-07-leeches-maggots_x.htm)

I also remember reading a paper on the benefits of maggot therapy but I'm too grossed out to look it up again.


It's not so much that leeches are "still used" more that, after scientific testing, they have been found to be useful certain conditions. Maggots, whilst having a huge 'Ick!' factor, are also useful for in specified conditions although IMO the condition is far yuckier than the maggots.

Either way they've been tested in labs, proved to effective and are specially bred for medical purposes in a sterile enviroment

[Kopji]

It's not so much that leeches are "still used" more that, after scientific testing, they have been found to be useful certain conditions. Maggots, whilst having a huge 'Ick!' factor, are also useful for in specified conditions although IMO the condition is far yuckier than the maggots.

Either way they've been tested in labs, proved to effective and are specially bred for medical purposes in a sterile enviroment

I've no doubt. There are probably plenty of traditional or folk medicine that are as effective as more "modern" treatments. In Mayo's case, I'm pretty sure the jar was an antique and the real leeches were kept in the pharmacy refrigerator.

yummy lunch was extra good today!
:shaggy:

hey! who took the leeches?
:mysteryma

[epepke]

Again doesn't really matter if it is true or not (and I have explained earlier why I contest that interpretation).

Unless you can show that medieval/dark ages/middle ages medicine and attitudes toward illness and disease were based on the proved scientific theories that modern medicine is then it is still a valid statement to say

Look, this is simple to solve.

Let's just have those who think that the Middle Ages was a wunnerfully dynamic time with really ooja-cum-spiff medicine subject themselves to it.

Then after five years, they'll be dead, and the rest of us can get on with it.

[Leif Roar]

Unless you can show that medieval/dark ages/middle ages medicine and attitudes toward illness and disease were based on the proved scientific theories that modern medicine is then it is still a valid statement to say

"Homeopathy belongs to the dark ages not the 21st century".

Not really. A thing doesn't necessary belong to the dark ages just because it doesn't belong to the 21st century. Would you have accepted a statement of "crossbows belong to the bronze age, not the 21st century" as correct? Of course not. Crossbows weren't around in the bronze age any more than homeopathy was around in the dark ages.

Even using the "barbaric, unenlightened" meaning of the term "the dark ages" the statement isn't valid, because homeopathy isn't the result of unenlightened superstition but of pseudo-science.

Homeopathy belongs primarily to the 19th and 20th century, alongside a number of similar medical "systems" based on wishful thinking and lofty theorisation rather than on actual effect. To claim it belongs to the dark ages serves not only to give a false impression of that period of European history, but also gives a distorted view of current times. Let's not confuse what is with what should be.

[Darat]

Not really. A thing doesn't necessary belong to the dark ages just because it doesn't belong to the 21st century. Would you have accepted a statement of "crossbows belong to the bronze age, not the 21st century" as correct? Of course not. Crossbows weren't around in the bronze age any more than homeopathy was around in the dark ages.

Even using the "barbaric, unenlightened" meaning of the term "the dark ages" the statement isn't valid, because homeopathy isn't the result of unenlightened superstition but of pseudo-science.

Homeopathy belongs primarily to the 19th and 20th century, alongside a number of similar medical "systems" based on wishful thinking and lofty theorisation rather than on actual effect. To claim it belongs to the dark ages serves not only to give a false impression of that period of European history, but also gives a distorted view of current times. Let's not confuse what is with what should be.

We'll have to disagree. Homeopathy was (and is) a type of sympathetic magic so the dark ages (being a time when the world view was sympathetic to sympathetic magic) is an appropriate period to say it belonged to. Homeopathy was developed in a time when its primary underpinnings (spells) had already been discarded by the sciences. Homeopathy was anachronistic when it was invented!

[ceo_esq]

Homeopathy was (and is) a type of sympathetic magic so the dark ages (being a time when the world view was sympathetic to sympathetic magic) is an appropriate period to say it belonged to.

I understand your comparison of homeopathy to sympathetic magic, but on what basis do you think the medieval worldview was especially sympathetic to sympathetic magic relative to, say, now?

[Darat]

I understand your comparison of homeopathy to sympathetic magic, but on what basis do you think the medieval worldview was especially sympathetic to sympathetic magic relative to, say, now?

Because that was the understanding of the world around them at the time, that cannot be said for today. Very few people believe that the aspirin cures the headache because the pharmacist has said a spell over it.

[ceo_esq]

Because that was the understanding of the world around them at the time, that cannot be said for today.

That's really just a restatement of the proposition, isn't it? In some sense, the popularity of homeopathy is prima facie evidence that the 21st century worldview - albeit not yours or mine individually - is sympathetic to such things. But is your statement that "the understanding of the world around them" in the Middle Ages was the way you've described it a conclusion or an assumption? What are you basing it on?

I wonder in passing whether our notion of the "21st-century worldview" is a broadly accurate reflection of the entire human race at present.


Very few people believe that the aspirin cures the headache because the pharmacist has said a spell over it.

They most certainly do, in a manner of speaking. Didn't you suggest a moment ago that this is more or less what homeopathy is all about?

I thought we'd established that spells, magic and such were not part of standard medieval medical theory.

When you point out that "Homeopathy was developed in a time when its primary underpinnings (spells) had already been discarded by the sciences", I think that's arguably true of the Middle Ages as well. Do you think the Scholastics based their science on spells?

[Darat]

That's really just a restatement of the proposition, isn't it? In some sense, the popularity of homeopathy is prima facie evidence that the 21st century worldview - albeit not yours or mine individually - is sympathetic to such things. But is your statement that "the understanding of the world around them" in the Middle Ages was the way you've described it a conclusion or an assumption? What are you basing it on?



And that is exactly what Randi was commenting on! That such beliefs don't belong in the 21st century, that we have made so many advances in understanding the world - that if someone believes in this they are employing a mindset much more akin to the mindset that existed in the dark ages rather then in an age where anti-antibiotics, chemotherapy, heart transplants, anti-histamines, jet planes, computers, men walking on the moon all exist because that mindset was proved to be inaccurate in describing the real world.

I wonder in passing whether our notion of the "21st-century worldview" is a broadly accurate reflection of the entire human race at present.


Well unless you show me that the vast majority of people with access to Randi's commentaries believe that the Internet works because someone casts a spell on the wires then again his comment was relevant to the audience. Also as I mentioned earlier our view of the "Dark ages" is a very eurocentric view of the world so all we can do is compare like with like - so we aren't comparing the state of say the great Kingdoms of northern Africa of the time to the state of northern African countries today when we compare something to the dark ages.


They most certainly do, in a manner of speaking. Didn't you suggest a moment ago that this is more or less what homeopathy is all about?



Which is why Randi's comment was quite accurate.





I thought we'd established that spells, magic and such were not part of standard medieval medical theory.



Nope we both just asserted our beliefs about that. (My belief is based on the fact that the belief in (as one example) witchcraft was prevalent.)



When you point out that "Homeopathy was developed in a time when its primary underpinnings (spells) had already been discarded by the sciences", I think that's arguably true of the Middle Ages as well. Do you think the Scholastics based their science on spells?

Which has no relevance to what I initially described as "where superstition and faith defined the world view of the majority of the people."

To date all you have done, at best is argued that a certain stereotypical understanding of the dark ages may be wrong. What you haven't done is show that Randi's comment, given the context, was inappropriate, was broadly inaccurate and so on and did not convey the point he wanted to make.

[ceo_esq]

Regardless of its earliest forms, [trepanation] was still used in the Middle Ages as a treatment for madness.

This is true, but with some important caveats, according to the article "Insanity, Treatment of" in the Dictionary of the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_the_Middle_Ages).

First, when mental patients in the care of medieval doctors were trepanned, it had nothing to do with "letting demons out" of their heads, as you suggested in an earlier post. According to the DMA, "Insanity may have been characterized by different names and attributed to various causes during the Middle Ages, but it was evidently recognized as a disease." Medieval physicians expressly rejected supernatural etiologies of mental illness, even if sometimes they would assent, as a last resort, to allowing their patients to be treated with "folk/empirical recipes and ... magical rites and incantations. They often justified this by adding , 'so that something may be done' when purely human attempts proved futile."

Interestingly, although such desperate measures sometimes involved appeals to religious powers, according to the DMA, "Contrary to modern assumption, these did not consist of exorcisms[.]"

Next, the article indicates that trepanning was not only viewed as drastic, but also suggests that it was done only where head trauma was diagnosed as the cause of mental disorder or disruption: "trepanation [was performed] to drain blood that had accumulated after a blow to the head". And as we know from the earlier BBC article, medieval trepanation was at least sometimes a successful and even life-saving operation. Indeed, the purposes for which trepanation seems generally to have been used in the Middle Ages are essentially the same purposes for which it is still used today.

No demons there.


And that is exactly what Randi was commenting on! That such beliefs don't belong in the 21st century, that we have made so many advances in understanding the world - that if someone believes in this they are employing a mindset much more akin to the mindset that existed in the dark ages rather then in an age where anti-antibiotics, chemotherapy, heart transplants, anti-histamines, jet planes, computers, men walking on the moon all exist because that mindset was proved to be inaccurate in describing the real world.

For the sake of accuracy, Randi used the term "Middle Ages" rather than "Dark Ages" (this time, at least). Recall that the basic mindset (rational inquiry, scientific method, etc.) that gave rise to all those things arose during the Middle Ages, not the modern era, as the modern historians I've cited here and elsewhere have pointed out. Obviously, the specific material advances you're referring to came later. However, since that mindset appears to share the stage with quackery to a very great extent in the 21st century, it is hardly surprising to observe that it has done so since the Middle Ages and before. That doesn't mean that a given form of quackery belongs in the Middle Ages.

What is an "anti-antibiotic"?


Well unless you show me that the vast majority of people with access to Randi's commentaries believe that the Internet works because someone casts a spell on the wires then again his comment was relevant to the audience.

I hope few people with access to Randi's commentaries believe that, although I would venture to guess that, roughly speaking, half or more of them believe in their horoscopes or in psychics. But really, what is the relevance of believing that the Internet works because someone casts a spell on the wires? Are you suggesting, for example, that medieval people tended to believe that the tools they used worked because someone had enchanted the tools?


Which is why Randi's comment was quite accurate.

It means your comment was inaccurate, doesn't it? People who buy homeopathic remedies do kind of believe - in a manner of speaking - that they work because the homeopath used sympathetic magic.


Nope we both just asserted our beliefs about [whether that spells, magic and such were part of standard medieval medical theory].

OK. I decided to hit the books again, particularly since no one else seems to want to do it.

In the rather lengthy DMA encyclopedia entry on medieval medicine ("Medicine, History of", as well as a companion piece on Byzantine medicine), I searched in vain for any reference to spells, demons, or anything of that sort. The closest thing to superstition in the customary sense was a couple of references to the occasional influence of astrology.

We learn a few interesting facts about the state of the medical art in the Middle Ages:

Next to the influence of Hippocrates and Galen, that of Alexander of Tralles was the greatest in the Middle Ages in both the East and the West. His writings were translated into Syriac, Arabic, Hebrew, and Latin. His [i]Twelve Books on Medicine has been described as a masterpiece and became a required textbook at the University of Paris in the High Middle Ages. He was more original than his predecessors and maintained an independent judgment based on great learning and personal observation. He advised that "choice of drugs should be guided by reason but even more by experiment."

Paul of Aegina ... is the author of a [7th century!] seven-book encyclopedia, which provides information on surgery, pediatrics, lung diseases, gout, sclerosis of the kidneys, encephalitis, and other illnesses. His book on surgery was a prescribed textbook at the University of Paris for many years. He wrote on catheterization, tracheotomy, excision of tonsils, nasal polyps, lithotomy, hemorrhoidectomy, and several other forms of surgery. He had extracted cataracts and had operated for trichiasis, cysts, and staphyloma, among other maladies. His work, too, was translated into Arabic and had a considerable influence on Arabic medicine, especially in the areas of gynecology and surgery.

According to the DMA, even before the twelfth century, Western physicians had a "confirmed ... belief" that "medicine should be studied as a rational system with close ties to [natural] philosophy, grounded in logical order and susceptible of methodological investigation."

As I suggested earlier, the central concepts of medieval medical theory were pretty far removed from magic or supernaturalism:

If we read through the heavily schematic Isagoge, it will serve us as an introduction to Galenic medical theory, as it did so many students in the Middle Ages. We learn first about the res naturales, whose normalcy constitutes health: the four elements, the four primary qualities; the four humors or bodily fluids ... These "things natural" provide the basis for understanding the physiological and psychological activity of the body, and thus health: Every body, indeed every member of the body, has its own normal balance or proper temperament of qualities and humors, and illness arises when imbalance is so great as to distort function. The six nonnaturals, of which we learn next, are the cases external to the body that we or the physician can manipulate to preserve or sometimes to restore health: air, food and drink, excretion, exercise, sleep, and the emotions. Finally we learn of pathology: of disease, its causes and consequences (etiology and semiotics) - the res contra naturam. Diseases are classified sometimes by the part of the body they affect, sometimes by the symptoms they manifest, and sometimes by their supposed cause.

... [T]he Isagoge summarizes medical practice for the beginning student: "The practice of medicine deals with the right ordering of the nonnaturals, with giving of drugs, and of surgery" - to be essayed in that order, no doubt, by the consulting physician; of these the administration of drugs, mostly botanical, seems to have dominated medical practice.

So, as I suggested earlier, it was humoralism, not magic, that provided the underpinnings of medical practice in the Middle Ages (the article "Humoralism" by medical historian Vivian Nutton in Volume 1 of the Companion Encyclopedia of the History of Medicine (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0415164184/104-2022664-4660767?v=glance&n=283155) confirms that "Historically, humoralism formed the basis for the Western tradition of medicine down to the nineteenth century.") Medieval medical treatments were primarily centered around manipulation of diet and regimen on the one hand, and pharmaceutical therapy on the other. Conspicuously absent (at least, from the standpoint of modern historical myths) were magical rituals or appeals to the supernatural.

The topic of humoralism brings me to another point I wanted to make: medieval medical practitioners, regardless of their therapeutic skill or effectiveness, were overwhelmingly allopaths. If for no other reason than this, it is problematic to assert that homeopathy "belongs" in the Middle Ages, for homeopathic theory would have clashed with the prevailing medical theories of the day. Indeed, it is hard to imagine homeopathy gaining any significant foothold prior to the theoretical speculations of Paracelsus in the 16th century. Thus, there is a better case for saying that homeopathy belongs in the Renaissance than for saying it belongs in the Middle Ages.

Surgery, as the earlier-cited medieval textbook points out, was the third area of medical practice. The DMA notes:

The branch of thirteenth-century medicine that has received most praise for its empirical and "progressive" quality is surgery ... The first medieval compilation on the subject was the so-called Bamberg Surgery of the early twelfth century...; it was supplanted by the text of Roger Frugardi, fifty years later, which in Guido d'Arezzo's rearrangement of 1170 dealt with certain operations, the treatment of wounds, fractures, and dislocations in a systematic and widely useful fashion... The thirteenth century surgical literature is plainly marked by the immediacy of direct experience, on the battlefield or in urban practice, which unquestionably led to some concrete advances.

The article goes on to assert that medieval people under the care of a doctor "were probably healthier than others, relatively speaking; their therapy was generally moderate and sensible and did not go to the heroic extremes of, say, the early nineteenth-century[.]" Here, I suspect the author may have phlebotomy in mind: it was not uncommon for late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century patients to be bled literally to death by their doctors, at the height of the medical establishment's love affair with phlebotomy. The DMA suggests that this would have occurred rarely in the Middle Ages.

By the way, would you be inclined to say that people relying on the care of a homeopath are "probably healthier than others" or that "their therapy is sensible"? If not, then that's another reason for concluding that homeopathy would be out of place in the context of medieval medical practice.


Which has no relevance to what I initially described as "where superstition and faith defined the world view of the majority of the people."

Then what exactly did you intend by saying that "Homeopathy was developed in a time when its primary underpinnings (spells) had already been discarded by the sciences"? Are you suggesting that, say, the underpinnings of the sciences of the 13th century included spells?

Also, unless I am completely misinterpreting you, you are attempting to relate the "historical appropriateness" of homeopathy to a prevailing worldview that is defined by faith and/or superstition. Have you considered whether the currently growing popularity of homeopathy might be due to the fact that the 21st-century worldview has an awful lot of faith and/or superstition in it? Yours doesn't, mine doesn't, and Randi's doesn't, of course, but perhaps it's a bit presumptuous to characterize the spirit of the age by reference only to our own worldviews. Maybe we're the ones who are a bit out of step with many of our contemporaries.

[drfrank]

They were also a time of brutality and terribly harmful superstitions ...snip... where superstition and faith defined the world view of the majority of the people.

And that differs how from now, exactly? ;)

[ceo_esq]

And that differs how from now, exactly? ;)

Seriously, though - add that to the list of questions posed and not yet answered here (to the extent it wasn't already on the list in one form or another).

[Darat]

Seriously, though - add that to the list of questions posed and not yet answered here (to the extent it wasn't already on the list in one form or another).

And that differs how from now, exactly? ;)

Incorrect ceo_esq I explained my use of that phrase in my first reply to you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1372011#post1372011) - a post that I don't think you responded to.

(ETA)

And your previous posts and citations support my original point in this thread. If you wish to somehow claim that the beliefs prevalent in those times were not magical (as I have been using the term) your last posts do not support your claim.

[ceo_esq]

Incorrect ceo_esq I explained my use of that phrase in my first reply to you (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1372011#post1372011) - a post that I don't think you responded to.

I'm sorry. I don't see any non-rhetorical question in that post that called for a direct answer in the same sense as the other questions to which I was referring. However, while I didn't explicitly reply to that post, I do believe that many of my comments have been more or less directly responsive to the points you made in it. Still, lest I be accused of such a lapse again, I'll offer a few more remarks on that post in particular.

People on the whole do not believe that the crops grow because of the prayers, farmers today understand the underlying principles of why you need to crop rotate (e.g. what actually is exhausted/concentrated in a field),

I have seen no evidence adduced that medieval people favored superstitious views of why crops grew. Even if he did not have nearly as much data about, say, how crop rotation works, I daresay the medieval farmer understood that it operated through natural causes. Why do you think he would not have had a notion of the causality of it that basically corresponded to the same type of causality (if a much less detailed one) a modern person associates with crop rotation?


people don't believe that imps and demons are causing illness in their family,

And you say I haven't addressed this post! At any rate, I daresay we agree on the truth of the following statement: In the modern era, some people (consciously or, as in the case of homeopathy, perhaps unconsciously) commingle the supernatural and the natural in their practical understandings of disease and medicine; probably most do not; and in particular medical science doesn't.

Now I'm inclined to think, on the basis of some of the readings I cited earlier and others, to think that in the medieval era, it was also substantially true that some people commingled the supernatural and the natural in their practical understandings of disease and medicine; probably most did not; and in particular medical science didn't. What evidence do you have that this basic assessment is wrong, other than that it doesn't correspond to your received ideas about the Middle Ages?

When it comes down to it, you seem to me to be attributing beliefs, practices and understandings to medieval folks that look for all the world like unsupported, popular, modern assumptions.


Also I think it is especially an excellent age if you want to point out that a specific treatment is nothing more then sympathetic magic that belongs to a long ago time e.g. to a time when superstition underlaid the thinking about treatment of disease and illness. It is very apt to mention that something like homeopathy (despite only being 200 years old) is in fact a throwback to the typical "dark ages/middle ages/medieval" mindset about treating disease and illness.

Again, pending a serious challenge to the findings I presented earlier, I am inclined to view your foregoing comments (as they apply to the medieval treatment of illness) as having been seriously undermined.

Why do you keep insisting that medieval allopathy, a collection of basically non-superstitious medical practices and theories, would have provided an especially congenial context for modern homeopathy?


If you wish to somehow claim that the beliefs prevalent in those times were not magical (as I have been using the term) your last posts do not support your claim.

I'm disputing your unsupported claim about the prevalent beliefs. Yet I suppose I'm having trouble understanding how you're using the term magical. Almost every time you give an example (people believing that crops grow by magic; people using magic to treat disease), it seems to be something that we have no evidence was characteristic of the Middle Ages. And if we encounter difficulty in distinguishing the Middle Ages from the modern era on the limited criteria you prescribe, then don't have a very strong basis for saying that something appearing in one actually is much better suited to the other.