What made science rise in europe?

[mad_scientist]

Had modern science not arisen in Europe, could it have arisen in other parts of the world (E.g. china, middle-east etc.) with time?

 

Is the scientific method an inevitable discovery?

[Phi for All]

!

Moderator Note

Unless you're proposing reasons or explanations that are against mainstream teachings, there's no reason for posting this in Speculations. I'll move it to Other Sciences for now, unless you have strong objections. Philosophy might be a good choice as well.

[Itoero]

Had modern science not arisen in Europe, could it have arisen in other parts of the world (E.g. china, middle-east etc.) with time?

 

Is the scientific method an inevitable discovery?

The scientific method is not a discovery. It's the body of techniques that leads to science. it emerged with science.

 

 

A main difference why modern science rose in Europe, lies in how traditions dealt with 'laws' of cause and effect.

Western Christianity developed a conception of causality that accommodated an omnipotent God - nature followed divinely ordained rational laws and so could be apprehended rationally, though God could suspend those laws miraculously if he chose. With this idea as their foundation, Christian scholars set about absorbing vast amounts of Greek learning in philosophy and sciences that had been lost during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire but preserved in Arabic translations.

 

Ironically, at around the same time Christian scholars were benefiting from this new influx of Greek learning, Muslim scholars were wrestling with the theological implications of causation. Muslim theologians were not comfortable with the idea of a universe that had to obey rules, feeling this put limits on an all-powerful God. In the end they rejected the idea that the universe obeyed consistent laws and developed an kind of "occasionalism" whereby everything happened in any instance by the will of Allah and any seeming causation was an illusion.

 

Christian Europe saw the rise of universities which had the rigorous study of logic as the foundation of all study.

 

Universities also functioned very differently to the madrassas of the Islamic world. Thanks to the political fragmentation that followed the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Church had developed a high degree of independence and maintained it in a way that gave rise to a clear separation of Church and State in western Europe. This gave universities a kind of autonomy not seen in similar institutions of learning elsewhere. They evolved as something between a trade guild of scholars and an independent state, which gave them a degree of freedom from political and religious control not seen elsewhere.

https://www.quora.com/Why-did-modern-science-arise-in-the-Judeo-Christian-West-rather-than-other-world-cultures

 

This concerns China.

https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-China-develop-modern-science-during-the-same-time-as-Europe

 

If modern science did not arise in Europe then perhaps it could arise in China or the Middle East but later and different.

[CharonY]

There are a number of counterpoints to be made. The described narrative is indeed one that has been proposed by a number of scholars (although ancient Greeks and Muslims did follow recognizable scientific pursuits). However, there are others that are not convinced. One key points is actually part of the narrative:

 

 

A main difference why modern science rose in Europe, lies in how traditions dealt with 'laws' of cause and effect.
Western Christianity developed a conception of causality that accommodated an omnipotent God - nature followed divinely ordained rational laws and so could be apprehended rationally, though God could suspend those laws miraculously if he chose. With this idea as their foundation, Christian scholars set about absorbing vast amounts of Greek learning in philosophy and sciences that had been lost during the collapse of the Western Roman Empire but preserved in Arabic translations.

Ironically, at around the same time Christian scholars were benefiting from this new influx of Greek learning,

 

 

Here, the influence of Greek and Muslim learning is, paradoxically seen as both instrumental yet gets kind of dismissed in the same paragraph, while highlighting the influence of Christianity. The issue here is, as some argue is if Christianity is the key element why was there a lack of significant scientific pursuit before the 12th or 13th century (i.e. around when Muslim naturalism based in Greek thought were established). I.e. the issue with that particular narrative is that it implies that the conditions were all set in a teleological manner to start a scientific tradition and only required the right ignition. It is a bit of a tunnel perspective where every other factor becomes a secondary element, and I am deeply distrustful of those simplified explanations. After all, what would have happened if the Arabic translations and developments of the Greek classics had not existed? What would have happened if the established universities in the various areas (Europe/Middle East/China) were under more or less religious or political control?

 

I think a likely more accurate reading is that it is a confluence of factors, which does include political/religious/economic elements that have allowed scientific science to flourish in the West.

[nec209]

Had modern science not arisen in Europe, could it have arisen in other parts of the world (E.g. china, middle-east etc.) with time?

 

Is the scientific method an inevitable discovery?

 

Doing the dark age Europe lost science it learn from Greek, Rome,Egyptians and Arabs . Most science came from Greek, Rome, Egyptians and Arabs. Doing the middle age people where society base on working on the land and going to church and fighting of enemies. There was no time for science learning and church had answers where medical illness , medical disorders and physiology being sinners or evil spirits in the person body. Pray and go to church and problem gone or get a church exorcism or cut hole and allow evil spirits out .

 

And the earth was flat and the center of the world and universe. It was not to the renaissance people got interested in science and had to relearn every thing and progress. And say the church was wrong.

 

Now in the US we going from renaissance to dark age base on the government dumbing down education and anti-science.

Edited May 7, 2017 by nec209

[Lord Antares]

 

Most science came from Greek, Rome, Egyptians and Arabs. Doing the middle age people where society base on working on the land and going to church and fighting of enemies. There was no time for science learning and church had answers where medical illness , medical disorders and physiology being sinners or evil spirits in the person body.

 

It depends what you consider ''modern science''. The scientific method was only starting to be properly used AFTER the middle ages, meaning Galileo and onwards. By this definition, science has most certainly arisen in Europe and not Egypt, Rome, Ancient Greece etc.

[studiot]

Had modern science not arisen in Europe, could it have arisen in other parts of the world (E.g. china, middle-east etc.) with time?

 

Is the scientific method an inevitable discovery?

 

Who says modern science arose in Europe or was kicked off by the renaissance?

 

I suggest that the earliest humans discovered and used the scientific method (better than some here I might add)

I further suggest that earlier peoples put it to different uses than the more recent Europeans.

And that these uses were conditioned by the times of their use.

We just need to recognise the differences.

 

Comparing Neolithic Science and Modern Science, consider a flint arrow head.

 

Modern Man looks at this and sees a 'bulb of percussion' and striking ripples. He sees a certain Moh's hardness and so on.

 

By the time neolithic man was making this arrowhead, he must have already used the scientific method several times.

 

Firstly to be making an arrowhead he must have invented the bow and arrow.

So he must have understood enough elasticity from his point of view to have tested different woods for springiness and hides as strings.

He would also have previously established that flint is a far better material than say sandstone for the job.

That is why modern Man does not dig up sandstone arrowheads.

 

Roll on many tens of thousands of years, and further scientific developments such as the discovery of a marvellous new material for arrowheads.

 

Bronze.

 

By this time population density had increased and Man needed to develop skills in new directions - Social Sciences.

 

He had to learn to live together in significant sized settlements.

So much development at that time concerned this aspect of developemental history.

Hammurabi's code was a prime example.

 

But all the ancients from then on were hindered from turning down a modern path right up to the pre-renaissance when the 3 centuries between Fibonnaci and Cardano saw the development of the full number palce system - our decimal system.

 

Science needs Mathematics and this is where our version started.

 

Previous mathematics had all been unrelated 'cookbook' techniques, like the instructions for arrow making.

Specifically aimed at solving a particular problem or meeting a particular need.

Edited May 7, 2017 by studiot

[CharonY]

 

Doing the dark age Europe lost science it learn from Greek, Rome,Egyptians and Arabs . Most science came from Greek, Rome, Egyptians and Arabs. Doing the middle age people where society base on working on the land and going to church and fighting of enemies. There was no time for science learning and church had answers where medical illness , medical disorders and physiology being sinners or evil spirits in the person body. Pray and go to church and problem gone or get a church exorcism or cut hole and allow evil spirits out .

 

And the earth was flat and the center of the world and universe. It was not to the renaissance people got interested in science and had to relearn every thing and progress. And say the church was wrong.

 

Now in the US we going from renaissance to dark age base on the government dumbing down education and anti-science.

 

The dark ages are a common misconception in which science and scholarly developments were on hold just waiting for the Renaissance. There were economically and social challenges following the decline the of the (Western). In the Western empire kingdoms established themselves with significant social restructuring. And it is true to some degree that access in that area to sources of information became more limited and there were not that many Latin translations of Greek sources so scholarly learning became more concentrated. But that does not mean that it vanished somehow. It is, for example a myth that in the middle ages scholars believed the earth to be flat.

 

Moreover, the Eastern empire persisted, which continued to contribute to science and who were crucial in dissemination the Greek classics to the Muslim world.

[Handy andy]

Ancient History shows that the science of astronomy has been used globally for millennia. The likes of Stonehenge is dated circa 2500BC http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/visit/places/stonehenge/history/ The history of Egypt originates according to the bible with one of Noahs sons being cursed (told to go away), after doing something not nice to his father and possibly mother, sodomy seemed popular in those days. He founded the Egyptian peoples . This was circa 3000BC to 3500BC, many temples all over Egypt are astrologically aligned according to various experts showing they used the science of astronomy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_continuously_inhabited_cities . With the advent of cities arguably the science of agriculture and psychology started, agriculture to enable large numbers of people to be fed and psychology with the beginnings of religion used to control large numbers of people.

 

The Stones of Stenness arguably predates Stonehenge https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_Stones_of_Stenness again it is aligned with the stars to indicate the seasons, mid winter, mid summer etc. The village of Scarae Brae in Orkney predates the Egyptian pyramids and is dated circa 4500BC.

 

Speculation Alert: (The Egyptian religions may be predated by the Hindu religion, I have not been able to find a reliable date for the beginnings of Hinduism, the gods keep on reincarnating. The similarities between many world religions would arguably suggest it is the same successful stories repeated over millenia, as a tool to control people. Religion is still a successful tool used today to control "rude ignorant people" (Albert Pike Morals and Dogma) that don't know any better)

 

Within the Egyptian pyramids what are thought to have been early batteries have been found. The Zodiac at Denderra in Egypt is thought to predate the temple complex dated circa 1500BC, it is not known how they managed to melt such a large area of volcanic glass and carve or melt the zodiac into it. It is difficult to make a copy of this artefact with todays technology. http://www.crystalinks.com/DenderaTempleComplex.html (note crystal links may not be a reliable website:) )

 

The science of war, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_War was written circa 500BC by a Chinese fella, but talks about methods and weapons most likely used by the Greeks or Egyptians. Greece being just across the sea from Egypt they were neigbours and therefore most likely traded ideas with each other. The sun god Ra is analogous to sky god Zeus, they both come down from the sky.

 

The science of genetics, Charles Darwin was a pigeon fancier and bread pigeons, selective breeding of pigeons is possibly 10000 years old, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeon_keeping . All the worlds variety of pigeons originate with the rock Pigeon.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Handy andy