Hassan Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1889512' date='Jun 13 2009, 01:40 AM']"During the European Renaissance of the 12th century, ideas on scientific methodology, including Aristotle's empiricism and the experimental scientific methods of Alhazen and Avicenna, were introduced to medieval Europe through Latin translations of Arabic and Greek texts and commentaries. Robert Grosseteste's (a Catholic Bishop btw) commentary on the Posterior Analytics places Grosseteste among the first scholastic thinkers in Europe to fully understand Aristotle's vision of the dual path of scientific reasoning. Concluding from particular observations into a universal law, and then back again: from universal laws to prediction of particulars. Grosseteste called this "resolution and composition". Further, Grosseteste said that both paths should be verified through experimentation in order to verify the principles." [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_scientific_method#Robert_Grosseteste"]Source[/url][/quote] That's very true. Muhammad Iqbal pointed out Bacon's debt to Avicenna quite some time ago. That does not mean that the current disciplinary matrix withing which modern scientists operate in was developed in the 12th century, that would be utterly non-sensical. Even setting aside Kuhn's work the modern disciplinary matrix has many important elements, such as Popper's massive contributions, which simply were absent in the 12th century. Any basic historical text, that was not written by a quack, will make it clear that, at the very least, there have been important evolutions in scientific activity since the 12th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='Hassan' post='1889517' date='Jun 13 2009, 01:49 AM']That's very true. Muhammad Iqbal pointed out Bacon's debt to Avicenna quite some time ago. That does not mean that the current disciplinary matrix withing which modern scientists operate in was developed in the 12th century, that would be utterly non-sensical. Even setting aside Kuhn's work the modern disciplinary matrix has many important elements, such as Popper's massive contributions, which simply were absent in the 12th century. Any basic historical text, that was not written by a quack, will make it clear that, at the very least, there have been important evolutions in scientific activity since the 12th century.[/quote] Well before we get too far off topic, the point was to refute the stupid little diagram. Which suggested that scientific development ceased completely during the [i]Christian Dark Ages.[/i] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kitty Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1889475' date='Jun 12 2009, 11:36 PM']To bad it's complete bull. The Scientific method was itself concieved during the Middle/Dark Ages.[/quote] [quote]The imperium wasn't in great shape when Catholicism was made the religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius. It's not like the Western Empire would have lasted any longer than it did if Christianity had not been made the religion of the State. I wonder who would have preserved Greco-Roman culture in the West if the Latin Church had not done so.[/quote] LOL it was a joke. /fail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='Kitty' post='1889537' date='Jun 13 2009, 02:52 AM']LOL it was a joke. /fail[/quote] Can you not see that this is the debate table?!?!?!??! There is no room for jokes here.... (I laughed?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='Kitty' post='1889537' date='Jun 13 2009, 01:52 AM']LOL it was a joke. /fail[/quote] When I saw the image originated from a Atheist web site, I did not find it funny but a point of their typical mockery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 well, Kitty can express her opinions... especially since this thread is about "freedom of speech." and so can I... in my humble opinion, the graph displays ignorance and complete stupidity...so I did not laugh, because to me ignorance and stupidity are NOT funny... unless you are a Bill Maher fan... and who cares??? The Dominicans were founded during the "Dark ages..." (we Dominicans do not like to use that terminology...as it is completely worldy and does not reflect the Church at that time...) the mere fact that one man, St. Dominic would be so inspired to do something about the ignorance and stupidity of heresy at that time should tells us the HOLY SPIRIT was a'movin' and improvin' life back then... and in regards to freedom of speech, ironically, Resurrexi should be able to practice that without getting the whole board criticizing his one statement... as should Kitty, who surprisingly received more support than Resurrexi did... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dominicansoul Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 ...and sadly, I think in today's conditions in the church, St. Dominic would have a much more tougher time....than in the "dark ages..." i think we are living the darkest age man has ever seen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
picchick Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='dominicansoul' post='1889556' date='Jun 13 2009, 05:02 AM']well, Kitty can express her opinions... especially since this thread is about "freedom of speech." and so can I... in my humble opinion, the graph displays ignorance and complete stupidity...so I did not laugh, because to me ignorance and stupidity are NOT funny... unless you are a Bill Maher fan... and who cares??? The Dominicans were founded during the "Dark ages..." (we Dominicans do not like to use that terminology...as it is completely worldy and does not reflect the Church at that time...) the mere fact that one man, St. Dominic would be so inspired to do something about the ignorance and stupidity of heresy at that time should tells us the HOLY SPIRIT was a'movin' and improvin' life back then... and in regards to freedom of speech, ironically, Resurrexi should be able to practice that without getting the whole board criticizing his one statement... as should Kitty, who surprisingly received more support than Resurrexi did... [/quote] Because Rex was serious and Kitty was not. I don't know how laughing at a joke is considered support and taking someone seriously is not. But whatevs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweens8403 Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1887715' date='Jun 10 2009, 11:19 AM']...most haven't thought about the conclusions of their beliefs.[/quote] See, that's exactly what I always thought about folks who support detestable things like abortion, pornography and the like. Abortion - kills the child & emotionally/physically scars the mother forever Pornography - destroys the innocence of women and enslaves men Fornication - destroys healthy marriages or prevents healthy ones from forming Sodomy - at the very least it violates the natural law of nature, no life comes from this union. (Even the un-churched should oppose this on the basis of evolution since it hinders the continuation of the species) Shall I go on? The Church condemns these behaviors in order to protect us from their destructive effects, not to be a killjoy. These evils have flourished in a culture which believes in complete free speech. As Socrates said on the first page, laws protecting free speech were put in place by our founding fathers primarily to preserve the people's ability to speak freely concerning political matters. During the colonial era people were routinely thrown in jail for "speaking against the crown". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Didymus Posted June 13, 2009 Share Posted June 13, 2009 We also have to remember, however, that the right to free speech was itself never put into place or created by the Constitution. It was merely acknowledged by the Constitution as a coming from our Creator. It sounds kinda ridiculous when I hear someone say "I believe there [i]should/shouldn't[/i] be a right to free speech, to assemble, etc." Either those rights exist or they do not. The government cannot give or take away anyone any rights. Corporations cannot give or take away rights. These large entities can only acknowledge or fail to acknowledge rights that we have inherent within us as human beings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggamafu Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 [quote name='sweens8403' post='1889652' date='Jun 13 2009, 10:41 AM'](Even the un-churched should oppose this on the basis of evolution since it hinders the continuation of the species)[/quote] This is actually quite a powerful argument to an atheist; not in that it will make a gay person straight, but that it makes complete sense. From a naturalistic perspective, homosexuality is like cancer - it is an abnormal defect that acts as a population control. In other words, the argument proves that, even from a naturalistic perspective, homosexuality is only "right" in the negative sense that cancer is "right". But it is not the healthy, evolutionary ideal. It is "less than". It is a defect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now