Talk:European science in the Middle Ages

What to do with "Science in Medieval Western Europe"

A long while back I had proposed making this an umbrella article and putting most of the details in this article in various sub-articles. To this end I had created Science in Medieval Western Europe. Unfortunately I never really got any traction on building a consensus. Clearly though something needs to change.

• At the moment the Science in Medieval Western Europe article and this one have a high degree of redundancy so if we are not going to split then we should get rid of Science in Medieval Western Europe.
• Obviously there is an outstanding complaint that this article is too long which I believe is correct. Either some of the detail of the article just needs to be tossed out (which would be unfortunate) or it should be split up as I had originally proposed.

So is there any chance of a consensus at this point?

--Mcorazao (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have moved this discussion from the archives back to the talk page since I'd like to reopen it.

The Science in Medieval Western Europe article has been largely ignored since it was established, while most editing activity has gone on in Science in the Middle Ages. In response to the concern about this article being too long, I have recently moved the list of medieval scientists to a new article Medieval European scientists. I suggest either moving the list of medieval scientific achievements in a similar fashion or simply deleting it, leaving this article as a narrative account of medieval science.

I agree with Mcorazao's proposal to get rid of Science in Medieval Western Europe.

Is there a chance of obtaining his desired consensus? --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I have not been involved in these articles for a while. I am unclear, though, as to what the proposed direction here really is. To be clear I only suggested removing Science in Medieval Western Europe if an appropriate alternative article organization were proposed. Science in the Middle Ages as it stands is still rather long (it exceeds WP's guidelines by a considerable amount). It is also a bit unbalanced giving too little attention to some regions compared to others. It seems that to balance it properly either content has to be removed or the article has to be made longer. Because of the length issue it seems content needs to be removed. It does not appear that each of the sub-categories is adequately covered in other articles so it would be a shame to lose the content. So what is really the proposal here to deal with all that? --Mcorazao (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your insights. You mention the article gives "too little attention to some regions." Could you spell out those regions you think need more coverage (and those that need less)?

I'm used to some rather long historical articles, so I'm not personally upset by its length.

The one thing that could easily be moved or deleted is the list of medieval scientific achievements.

Many of the regional sections are also topical lists of scientific discoveries and lack coherent historical narratives. In that regard, I think the Western Europe section is appropriately organized, although its content still needs work.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that the article is poorly organized at this point. But that is a separate issue. In terms of balance, to begin with during most of the Middle Ages Christian Western Europe was not particularly a center of scientific achievement. And yet that discussion takes up a lot of the article. This is not to say that the content on the Europeans is not valuable but if the article is going to be balanced the discussion of Latin Europe should be a relatively small fraction of the article. The balance between China and other areas strikes me as a bit off as well but that's a little more debatable.

Regarding length, see WP:Article size. Typically around 30-50K is considered a good size. If the topic justifies it (i.e. has a lot to it but can be discussed coherently as disjoint subtopics) maybe going up above 60K is reasonable. But you'll notice that GA and FA articles are generally nowhere near 100K regardless of the topic (perhaps there are exceptions out there but you'll find most of the experienced GA/FA editors will ding articles that get to that size).

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

All articles in the medieval series as covered by this template should remain reserved to the medieval world in its original sense and most common sense, that is medieval (Western) Europe. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that consistency is important across Wikipedia and you make a good point that we are not being consistent. I do have a concern about using a term that explicitly describes a period but does not explicitly designate a geography and using it to limit the geography. Though a majority of authors use "Middle Ages" to refer only to W. Europe, not all do. But regardless that is a discussion that is wider in scope than this article. Has this discussion occurred somewhere else that somebody knows of? --Mcorazao (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There are some scattered remarks on the various talk pages, but as yet noone has bothered to raise the question to general awareness. But there is no doubt that this question is directly relevant to your inquiry, since it means that there would no need for a separate article on Science in Medieval Western Europe, since Science in the Middle Ages is the right place. Right now, the extensive sections on the Islamic world, India and China were more or less simply copied and pasted from their respective science-related articles, encroaching on the original subject, that of (Western) European science. We should keep the Byzantine part, but the rest needs to be removed in my view. Much of the Chinese section, for example, consists moreover of technological items, so this is double off-topic here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

There's a nice and fairly authoritative discussion (a presidential address by the president of the Medieval Academy of America, Fred Robinson) which was published in Speculum 59 (1984): 745-756 and which deals with the terms Medieval and Middle Ages. In the course of his discussion, Robinson turns to the meaning of the terms:

"I turn now to the question of the meaning and status of the words medieval and Middle Ages. As for setting the precise dates at which the Middle Ages begin and end, you may expect only crafty evasions from me. Scholars have advocated many different termini for our period, and there seems to be little agreement and indeed little basis for reasoned argument on these points. The Middle Ages begin, we are told, with the death of Theodosius in 395, or with the settlement of Germanic tribes in the Roman Empire, or with the sack of Rome in 410, or with the fall of the Western Roman Empire (usually dated A.D. 476), or even as late as the Moslem occupation of the Mediterranean. It ends, according to Oscar Halecki, with the fall of Constantinople, or with the invention of printing, or with the discovery of America, or with the beginning of the Italian wars (1494), or with the Lutheran Reformation (1517), or with the election of Charles V (1519). Several reference works I have consulted simply assert that the Middle Ages ended in 1500, presumably on New Year's Eve. Yet another terminus often given for the Middle Ages is the so-called "Revival of Learning," that marvelous era when Humanist scholars 'discovered' classical texts and restored them to mankind after the long Gothic night....

"There is an added difficulty of periodization in that the Middle Ages last longer in some countries than others. Italy seems somehow well into the Renaissance at a time when much of the rest of Europe is still happily medieval. I have been shown medieval churches in Finland which date from the seventeenth century. And in Russia the Middle Ages seem to last almost as long as the winter. The dictionary of the Russian language published by the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. defines the limits of the Middle Ages as follows: 'Embracing the period from the collapse of the Roman slave-holding empire (end of the fifth century) to the beginning of capitalism (end of the seventeenth century).'"

Robinson does not define the geographic limits of the term, but the examples he gives are all from Europe and the Mediterranean world, and he mentions Byzantine studies as an element of medieval studies. The Middle Ages are not a simple chronological period, but an actively interacting community for which Charlemagne's communications with Irene and Nikephoros in Constantinople and with Harun al-Rashd in Baghdad provide useful markers. That community is centered on the Latin speaking West, but encompasses the Greek speaking Eastern Roman Empire and the Arabic speaking Islamic world; it does not extend to India and China. I suggest those limits for an article on Science in the Middle Ages.

Applying those general parameters to this article, since there are already articles on science in China and India, I would have no objections to GPM's suggestion that we delete those sections. The existing sections will still need to be refined, but it is a more manageable task. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

On Muslim science we already have a separate article, Science in medieval Islam. True, there is also a separate one on Byzantine science, but here I would argue that Eastern Roman science was still essential European. To cover the interaction in the triangle medieval Europe - Byzantine realm - (Western) Muslim world we could introduce subsections like Byzantine science#Byzantine and Islamic science, but the current overgrow needs to be massively cut back. The article, as it currently stands, has lost its thrust and meaning. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: I had a chuckle on "presumably on New Year's Eve" and "still happily medieval". Good refreshing address, this one! Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion drove me to pull some surveys of the history of medieval science from my bookshelves. The oldest one, Augustine to Galileo (1959) by A. C. Crombie, is probably about 78% Western Europe, 20% Islam, and 2% Byzantium. David Lindberg's The Beginnings of Western Science (1992) displays similar proportions, although some reviews of the book took him to task for reducing the role of Islam to that of transmitting Greek science to the West. Near the end of Ed Grant's The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages (1996), he discusses this interesting question:

"Why during the last 800 years of the Byzantine Empire did scholars add little of significance to their enormous legacy of ancient Greek science and natural philosophy? Why did the civilizations of Islam and Western Europe outperform Byzantium by wide margins, despite a total reliance on translations, and with fewer ancient works available?" (p. 188).

This is not the time to answer Grant's question, but these sources suggest something like an appropriate balance for an article on Science in the Middle Ages. Such a balance would make a separate article on "Science in Medieval Western Europe" unnecessary. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

2% only for Byzantium...perhaps we just post a pic of a Greek beauty and then move on to Europe and Islam. No, seriously, with Latin translations of the 12th century, Islamic contributions to Medieval Europe and Transmission of the Classics (as well as Spanish translation in the Golden Age) we have already three full articles covering the transmission process, but yet not one which concentrates on medieval Science. If this fails either, then I am for the pic only. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:19, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, I propose to delete the sections on India and China in a day or so, which should come close to the alternative organization Mcorazao called for before deleting the article on Science in Medieval Western Europe. I still am not sure how to deal with the list of Major accomplishments; I would favor deleting it although, since some find such lists useful, I'm open to setting it up as a new article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The list appears to have been originally useful but is jaggedized beyond recognition and looks too tainted now for my taste, frankly. I wouldn't object to set it up, though, but not under my user name. :-P Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth I agree with your propossed changes Steve. I favour deleting the list of major accomplishments.Thony C. (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, seeing how someone has already transplanted most of the China info here to History of science and technology in China, I don't see the need to have (virtually) the same information in two articles. But what about India and the Middle East? Is this information salvageable? It seems articles like History of Indian science and technology are already fleshed out to a fair degree and don't necessarily need an influx of new material (taken from this article as it currently stands).--Pericles of Athens^Talk 18:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

As you pointed out, the Chinese material has already been copied. The Indian material summarizes material that already exists in articles on various aspects of Indian science. That seems to make it unnecessary to retain them here where (as I've argued) they are historiographically inappropriate.

I would keep the Middle Eastern / Islamic material. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I am for removing this material, too. It seems largely copied and pasted from the various linked overview articles and it is thoroughly tainted; even with a brief glance I noticed material I have shown in Jagged 85's RFC/U to be unsupported by the source cited such as this claim:

• They set up the earliest dedicated hospitals in the modern sense of the word,[62] including the first psychiatric hospitals[63] and the first medical schools which issued diplomas to students qualified to become doctors of medicine
• Much of the rest is in the same vein of the RFC/U:
• Alkindus was the first to introduce experimentation into the Earth sciences
• Biruni is considered a pioneer of geodesy for his important contributions to the field
• His map of the world was considered the most accurate in the 16th century
• The earliest known treatises dealing with environmentalism and environmental science, especially pollution, were Arabic treatises

And so on and so forth. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

To avoid wasted effort, let me inform everyone that I am currently editing a userfied version of this article at User:SteveMcCluskey/SMA. If there are no serious objections to the drastic cuts I've proposed, I will drop this version (currently 61K) into the present article shortly. It deals with some of the points that GPM has mentioned, and will provide a more manageable scope for further edits. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion that we need one article on Science in medieval Europe and one on Science in medieval Islam, not a half on the former topic and one and a half on the latter. Therefore, I'd oppose the inclusion of material on Islamic science here which goes beyond the immediate question of intercultural interaction between the two regions. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking there is no such thing as 'Mediaeval Islam'. Any such article should be called 'Science in the Islamic Empire during the period of the European Middle Ages'. However as this is coincident with the so called Islamic Golden Age this should be used for the title of the article on Islamic Science. Otherwise go ahead Steve Thony C. (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus to Delete Science in Medieval Western Europe?

In view of the edits made thus far, do we have a consensus to delete Science in Medieval Western Europe as redundant? I fear that deleting this article instead would lead us back to a new Science in the Middle Ages article in a few years. (Alternatively, we could discourage that by changing this article to a disambiguation page pointing to the various regional articles). I have real world issues and want to wrap this up. SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, considering how the discussion has evolved, we have now a consensus. Still, I believe it first needs to be determined whether the European parts of this Science in the Middle Ages are really fully identical with Science in Medieval Western Europe, so that we do not lose any contents through deletion. Our best informant for this is User:Mcorazao, the creator of the spin-off, whom I have requested per email to reply here. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am alone in feeling this way but it seems to me that the way the thinking is heading here violates WP:WORLDVIEW. I agree that the term Middle Ages is most commonly used in a somewhat geographically-specific way (though not universally in this way), but it is still a term referring to a time period, not a place. Trying to use this term to imply a geography has the subtle implication that this geography is the only one that really matters, which is obviously biased.

I guess maybe the question that should be asked is whether "Science in the Middle Ages" is really a good title for any article in Wikipedia because of the issues that are being raised. To the extent that we want to have articles that are specific to geographies I believe that the titles need to be specific to the geographies, not just loosely imply them in a roundabout way. I would still argue that a general article that discusses scientific progress during this period in history has value as well, though it seems a different title is in order. In other words, I am not sure I see a reason for deleting either of these articles. It seems that perhaps the right thing is to retitle the articles and clarify their scope.

--Mcorazao (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The term "Ming Dynasty" refers to a period of time in Chinese. The term "Vedic period" refers to a period of time in Indian culture. The term "Golden Age" refers to a period of time in Islamic culture. etc. etc. The term "Middle Ages" refers to a period of time in European culture and so the time aspect should not and can not be seperated from the geographical.Thony C. (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is the precise opposite of what I suggested and a deliberate straw man. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I should point out that the article Golden Age does not cover the geography or period you are referring to. Ming Dynasty is not a time period, though it is often used to informally indicate a time period. Vedic period is a time period, but the term Vedic explicitly refers to a region. --Mcorazao (talk) 14:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

How can the correct definition of a historical term be a straw man? The term "Middle Ages" refers to a period of time in European culture and as such refers to a specific place and to use it so, that is correctly, in no way has "...has the subtle implication that this geography is the only one that really matters..." and is so not biased.Thony C. (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we don't quite agree on anything here really. *lol* No two opinions are quite alike. Perhaps we should do it like they do it in these cases on physicist congresses and set up unceremoniously a ballot box and a vote. Would save us time at least. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now, there is no mention of China at all. At least there should be links to science of the period in China and the major influences should be mentioned. David R. Ingham (talk) 17:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ballot box

I think it is apparent that we need a more transparent mechanism to bring the discussion to a conclusion, since there are not just one, but several things which need to be determined and they all are interrelated. So to untie the Gordian Knot I have set up this ballot box. Basis for your judgement should be this version. Please use only these five options which should cover all positions so far forwarded:

• Keep
• Keep as far it directly relates to Medieval/(Western) European/Catholic science
• If kept, complete rewrite
• Delete
• Merge

I'd propose we keep the vote open for one week and then we see where the vote has taken us. I am going to notify all users who have participated in the discussion so far to give them the opportunity to explicate their position.

Current material on science in medieval Western/Latin Europe	Byzantine science	Islamic science	Indian science	Chinese science	Science in Medieval Western Europe	Name proposal	Sign
Keep	Keep as far it directly relates to Medieval/(Western) European/Catholic science; Keep; If kept, complete rewrite	Keep as far it directly relates to Medieval/(Western) European/Catholic science; If kept, complete rewrite	Delete	Delete	Merge	Medieval science	Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep	Keep; If kept, complete rewrite	Keep as far it directly relates to Medieval/(Western) European/Catholic science; If kept, complete rewrite	Delete	Delete	Merge	Science in medieval Europe	Athenean (talk) 20:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep	Keep	Keep If kept, complete rewrite	Delete	Delete	Merge	Mediaeval Science	Thony C. (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep, with rename to Science in Medieval Europe	Keep, with rename. There is no justification for excluding Byzantine science in an article titled "science in the Middle Ages" or "science in Medieval Europe". Improvement is obviously to be encouraged.	I'm okay with excluding this, but only with a rename to clarify the scope.	Exclude with rename.	Exclude.	Merge	Science in Medieval Europe or Medieval European science	Cúchullain t/c 20:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep	Keep; If kept, complete rewrite	Keep as far it directly relates to Medieval/(Western) European/Catholic science	Delete	Delete	Merge	Science in medieval Europe	Knight1993 (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Rename to Science in Medieval Europe	Keep with rewrite	Merge with Science in m(M)edieval Islam	Merge with another existing or new article	Merge with history of Science and Technology in China	Merge	Science in Medieval Europe	Philg88 contact 14:10, 19 December 2024 UTC [refresh]
Keep as Science in the Middle Ages	Keep with rewrite	Keep with extensive rewrite	Delete	Delete	Delete / Merge any remaining material not in SMA	Science in the Middle Ages (per HoS Style) or Medieval Science (per Medieval style)	SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Science in the Middle Ages #Medieval European science /(Western) European/Catholic science Keep	Science in the Middle Ages #Byzantine science Keep with rewrite	Science in the Middle Ages #Islamic science Keep with rewrite	Science in the Middle Ages #Indian science Keep/re-instate with rewrite	Science in the Middle Ages #Chinese science Keep/re-instate with rewrite	Science in Mediaeval Western Europe Merge with #Medieval European science	Science in the Middle Ages	Felix505 (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep as an article about worldwide science (revert the removal of science in eastern Asia); perhaps rename to "History of Science (500 CE - 1500 CE)" or some similar timeframe.	Keep	Keep	Keep	Keep	Keep	Existing name ok but may be preferable to rename to something like "History of Science (500 CE - 1500 CE)" or some similar timeframe.	Mcorazao (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep: 9 (Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Thony C., Cúchullain t/c, Knight1993, Philg88, SteveMcCluskey, Felix505, Mcorazao)	Keep: 9 (Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Thony C., Cúchullain t/c, Knight1993, Philg88, SteveMcCluskey, Felix505, Mcorazao), with (complete) rewrite: 7 (Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Cúchullain t/c, Knight1993, Philg88, SteveMcCluskey, Felix505)	Keep: 4 (Thony C., SteveMcCluskey, Felix505, Mcorazao); Keep as far it directly relates to medieval European science: 3 (Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Knight1993); Delete: 2 (Cúchullain t/c [on condition of article rename], Philg88); If kept, (complete) rewrite: 5 (Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Thony C., SteveMcCluskey, Felix505)	Delete: 7 (Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Thony C., Cúchullain t/c, Knight1993, Philg88, SteveMcCluskey); Keep: 2 (Felix505, Mcorazao), with rewrite (Felix505)	Delete: 7 (Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Thony C., Cúchullain t/c, Knight1993, Philg88 [material already in Chinese science), SteveMcCluskey); Keep: 2 (Felix505, Mcorazao), with rewrite (Felix505)	Merge: 7 (Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Thony C., Cúchullain t/c, Knight1993, Philg88, SteveMcCluskey); Keep: 2 (Felix505, Mcorazao)	Science in medieval Europe: 4 (Athenean, Cúchullain t/c [2nd proposal semantically identical], Knight1993, Philg88); Medieval/Mediaeval science: 2,5 (Gun Powder Ma, Thony C., SteveMcCluskey [0,5]); Science in the Middle Ages: 2,5 (SteveMcCluskey [0,5], Felix505, Mcorazao)	Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Keep	Keep; If kept, complete rewrite	Keep	Delete	Delete	Merge	Medieval Science	--Anneyh (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Brief rationale

Gun Powder Ma: Medieval Europe deserves a science article of its own and Science in the Middle Ages is the right place to be for it: The main Wikipedia article defines the Middle Ages as "a period of European history from the 5th century to the 15th century". This scope is also fully reflected in the series of medieval articles, which this article belongs to, and which exclusively deal with (Western) European history. As it stands, Chinese science, Indian science and Islamic science all have long an article of their own. So medieval European science also needs and must have one of its own which it does not need to share with other scientific traditions. The influence of Byzantine and Islamic learning needs to be included, but it should not overgrow genuine medieval contents, since we already have three separate articles dealing with the cross-exchange and transmission between these regions: here, here and here. Time to give medieval European science a place of its own on Wikipedia. If kept, the Islamic section would require a complete rewrite due to being tainted beyond repair. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

First, brilliant idea about the ballot box. Only two disagreements. The Byzantine Empire is generally considered "European", and the characterization of "medieval" clearly applies, as it occupies a place between antiquity and the Renaissance. I also insist on including "Europe" in the title, if only so as to avoid endless complaints of the type "what about India and China", "the article is too Eurocentric", etc, of which I can guarantee we will get an endless stream of if it is not made clear in the title that the article pertains to Europe. Athenean (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I would still insist on a rewrite, since the article currently reduces the Byzantine role to a mere transmitter of ideas between East and West; but modern scholarship has long moved beyond this point and is today much more willing to treat Byzantine science on its own terms. The article should try to reflect this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good, I look forward to contributing a few things. Athenean (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Observation: Though I applaud trying gather opinions I believe that the way this question is structured is a straw man. The title of Science in the Middle Ages has been renamed in the table in such a way as to explicitly declare that there is overlap (rather like phrasing a question on civil rights legislation "Do you think bad ethnic groups should be kept away from good ethnic groups?"). This article currently covers science worldwide from roughly the mid 1st millenium to roughly the mid 2nd millenium (emphasis on roughly). I realize that there has been some stripping of content lately but that's a separate matter. The point here is whether a worldwide article is appropriate or not. That should be reflected in the table.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

It is - indirectly: Vote keep for all regions, give your name proposal and decline the merge, and this article factually becomes a global article. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have taken part in your vote but I must loudly and clearly protest that your inclusion of the expression "Catholic science" is totally and utterly ridiculous as there is and never was any such thingThony C. (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Cuchullain: From what I can tell of the above discussion, the consensus seems to be that medieval Europe deserves its own science article. I am okay with that, but it should not have the title "Science in the Middle Ages". As I have argued, the terms "medieval" and "Middle Ages" are well established at least in the fields of Islamic and Indian studies. In Islamic studies it is very well established; see for example J. J. Saunders' History of Medieval Islam and Gustave Grunebaum's Medieval Islam In Indian studies, a quick search revealed this book published by Oxford, Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya's The Making of Early Medieval India, and many others. Simply adding "Europe" to the title clarifies the intended scope of the article and keeps us from usurping a widespread term for a particular region. As another note, there is no justification for excluding Byzantine science from any discussion of "medieval" or "medieval European" science". If it were to be excluded the article would need a different name.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Knight1993: I welcome the idea of giving medieval Europe an articleof its own, because the current article gives the readers the impression that both western european and bizantine science were a simple extension of the islamic science. As for the name "catholic science", I think it´s as ridiculous as "islamic science", but wikipedia should not have double standards. If we have an "islamic science" article, we could technically have any religion-science article. But returning to the main topic, I also believe that the influence of islamic and be restricted, and not given half of the article.--Knight1993 (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey: Medieval science is clearly defined as an achievement of three cultures: the Latin West, The Greek and Byzantine East, and the Arabic / Islamic Mediterranean realm (including Spain, Sicily, North Africa, and the Near East). (In passing, this endorses Thony's comment; it's the Latin, not Catholic West). Because it is a broad cultural and geographical process, I oppose the title of Medieval European science. Such a fork will lead to the writing of two poor articles instead of one good one.--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

A voice of sanityThony C. (talk) 06:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As a note, I would actually prefer this measure. My above vote is based on what I presumed to be a developing consensus to focus the article on Europe.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Question. With this scheme, what happens to the article Science in medieval Islam? Spacepotato (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion is that the relevant material from here is merged with the renamed Science in Medieval Islam. Philg88 ^contact {time}}

My question was directed towards SteveMcCluskey's scheme, in which the scope of this article is taken to include the Islamic world. Spacepotato (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I misunderstood the question but I would point out that the Islamic world (mostly) wasn't and still isn't in Europe. Philg88 ^contact 14:10, 19 December 2024 UTC [refresh]

Good question. As I conceived it, the articles on Science in medieval Islam and Byzantine science would continue to exist under their existing titles, although after the editing that is generally agreed upon, those aspects of those subjects that contributed to the more general development of Western science would be included in Science in the Middle Ages. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This is also my take on the subject Thony C. (talk) 06:07, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Science.The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Religion. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.

Possibly part of the problem here is that some are seeking to ascribe or credit science to one of the religions. Indeed some may say that science is an outcome of the challenge to religious principals and dogma, hence arises a contradiction. We need only look at contentious issues such as creationism to find any easy point of conflict. Science essentially challenges religion and some might argue that science is a 'religion' of sorts in itself, at least in so much that it becomes a belief system for many. The rationality of science however is somewhat unforgiving of spiritualism and notions of superhuman controlling powers. Some would argue that science creates it's own replacements for the dogmas of religion in order to satisfy the needs of its followers and partitioners. Science has certainly managed to both execute and nourish many paradigms and dogmas. Possibly this places science well within the realm and scope of being a religion for some practitioners.

Science can effect a religious movement, as for example the uncomfortable acceptance by many Christians that the existence of fossils challenges the biblical notions of creation. Science may effect religions and challenge religious and spiritualistic interpretations of the world. The notion that Science can be attributed to a religious period, a religious movement or indeed to make assertions that medieval science is Catholic or Islamic stretches this concept very thin. It is inappropriate to try and partition science on nationalistic, geographic, religious borders. Proximity, the religious beliefs and nationality of individuals and groups clearly effect the emergence of thinking and scholarship but I think we are on thin ice if we try to execute a compartmentation of the history of science in this way. The borders of science are porous and as humans and their ideas move around they carry and project their knowledge and beliefs making science an amalgam of many influences and cultures. Are antibiotics Catholic? No, but the Pope is.

I note that sometimes people make assertions that many of the achievements made in the Islamic world not being made by persons of Muslim faith or observances, The inference is that the discoveries are therfore not attributable to an Islamic society as they were not performed by Muslims. These critics somehow miss the point that as these were non-Muslims whose scientific endeavour apparently flourished and so it illustrates that the surrounding Muslim society was supportive of enquiry, enlightenment and discovery. Strangely this is put forward to diminish the achievements of the Islamic world rather than to underline it's successes. In a contemporary context that is like saying a Muslim goes to a western country and in their life achieve great things, then that is an achievement of the western world. Yet if a westerner goes to the Muslim dominated east and does great things that also is seen a western achievement. Something is out of whack here and we must strive as editors to resist this sort cultural tunnel vision and cultural bias.

It seems religion often resists science but when it is time to describe the achievements of science there is a rush to claim those achievements upon religious. nationalistic and ethnic grounds. Science in medieval Europe did not exist in a vacuum, was influenced from outside Europe and its in turn influenced those outside Europe. People get too caught up trying to quantify this, it is far too elusive and subjective a concept to quantify, maybe it is just best to document the influences so that the article remains an objective vehicle. If Islamic, Byzantine, Latin or other influences are ignored it just becomes an exercise of myopia. If some seek to exclude the influences from the Islamic world it must not be forgotten that the 'empire' of Islam extended well into Europe at times. Islam is very much part of the European historical experience. Europe was not contained in a jar. Science in the Middle Ages offers the opportunity to discuss Science itself rather than the culture that a particular movement or ideas arose from. In having an article with a wider scope we hopefully have the opportunity to present the Science of this time. The Islamic world, the Catholic world, the wider Christian world and the Land of Nod all made contributions to science. As to trying to compartment Europe and exclude Indian Chinese, Greek, Byzantine, Islamic influences it will make for an contentious and flawed article. As to the rise of Europe I somehow think that things would have had a different outcome had the compass and gunpowder not found its way to Europe from China. It is like providing a date that China was "discovered", I would think that the people living there had already established a claim on "discovery". This notion of 'discovery' is similar to our problem here, difficulties arise when it is attempted to claim 'ownership' of something. So I vote that the article should be re-structured and re-written in an objective, neutral and unbiased manner to describe Science in the middle ages. Felix505 (talk) 11:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Felix505, I agree with you in many aspects. However, I must remind you that nobody is trying to take credit away from other civilisations here, we are just put things in its right place. We should give each culture the credit it deserves, no more, no less. Thanks to efforts of some editor, the present situation gives Islam much more credit than it deserves. We are just trying to fix that. As you say, Europe was not isolated from the rest of the world, and islamic influences were undoubtedly the most important foreign influences in Europe (because of the geographical proximity to asia and north africa, and the presence of islam in some european territories). But the opposite is just as true, and this article doesn´t mention that. We have entire articles dedicated to islamic contributions to europe in the middle ages, but we don´t have an article concerning european contributions to medieval islam, nor to the modern western contributions to the islamic world, which are countless and, I would dare to say, the most important. And the important influences of greek science in islamic science just receive a brief mention. This is not my idea of fairness.--Knight1993 (talk) 18:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Knight1993. I think you summed that up quite well. There is a lot of work to be done if reasonable balance and true impartiality is to be introduced. Makes my head spinFelix505 (talk) 04:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Felix505, your current position, if I understand it correctly, is that while Islamic science, Chinese science and Indian science will all continue to have an article of its own, medieval European science should be alone in giving up its own (by being merged with Science in the Middle Ages). Everybody is entitled to his opinion, but I'd find such a move thorougly inconsistent. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

For once I agree with GPM. I have a very strong feeling that Felix had read neither the debate here nor the relevant Wikipedia articles before launching his diatribe!Thony C. (talk) 13:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

[GPM & Thony C.] I assure you I did read the debate above and the articles concerned but I did not delve into the histories as I got the general drift of what had been going on by seeing the outcomes in the current Science in the Middle Ages article. I do not recall suggesting that [Medieval European science] should be done away with. If you look carefully at my response section of the table above you will note I use the 'hash' or 'pound' to define those as sections of the Science in the Middle Ages article. I have suggested that each of these has a section to itself to describe what contribution and role it had under the umbrella of Science of the Middle Ages. I am suggesting a merge of the content to make up a robust section of the rebuilt Science in the Middle Ages article, hence there being ready available content to do this with. Having done that there should be sufficient scope for a stand alone article on Medieval European Science. That article would then focus on Medieval European Science alone and the influence from other regions, peoples, societies or religious persuasions should really only have a look in where clear cross over influences of other regions direct contributions or shared relationships existed. This would hopefully assist in alleviating the current course which seems to be a little imbalanced to say the least.

• If the question was asked, do I ALSO support an article specifically on Medieval European Science? Then yes, I would whole heatedly support it's existence as long as there is still sufficient content for it..

My apologies I thought this particular discussion was about the Science in the Middle Ages article. If a seperate enquiry is to be raised on this discussion page about the merits of a Medieval European Science article it is probably going to get a bit confusing, however if that is what is happening now then I am happy to state that I would support it whole heartedly. Medieval Europe had plenty of significant contributions to the time and even if it did not that itself would be good cause for an article anyway. So GPM I guess you did not understand my position correctly. I think thatt --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 00:02, 28 August-- probably summed it up reasonably well, as did --Knight1993 (talk) 21:45, 26 August--. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings Felix505 (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anneyh: I don't like too much the wording Medieval Europe. The contact between islam and christanity is not only a crusade question, for Spain it was just a (moving) reality during the period! The communication with the Indian and Chinese worlds mostly happened after 1500, so it makes sense to exclude those to me. --Anneyh (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but vote is closed (see explicit hidden comment). Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

On vote

It is clear there are three sets of vote:

1. Those who voted keep for medieval European and Byzantine science, keep Islamic science as far as it directly to medieval European science (or remove it altogether) and delete the rest (5: Gun Powder Ma, Athenean, Knight1993, Cúchullain t/c, Philg88)
2. Those who voted keep for medieval European and Byzantine science, keep Islamic science and delete the rest (2: Thony C., SteveMcCluskey)
3. Keep all, effectively advocating an article on worldwide science in the MA (2: Felix505, Mcorazao)

The question now appears to me: do we interpret the vote by column or by vote block? Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I find your précis as far as it relates to the views of Steve McCluskey and myself somewhat inaccurate. Both of us emphasized that the section on Islamic science must be completely rewritten and if you read the discussion that preceded the vote that we both laid emphasis on the fact that this section should reflect the influence of Islamic science on the development of European science. Having said that as far as I can see the vote is totally conclusive and produces the same result whether you interpret it by column or blockThony C. (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been away from Wikipedia, but decided to do some edits during my vacation. Although I came back too late for voting, I quite like the results. BTW, for what it's worth, I favor "medieval science" as the name of the article. --Leinad-Z (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, I am a bit disappointed about the way the vote turned to nothing. This was one of the fairest and most elaborate votes I've seen on Wiki and yet there was disagreement on how the result has to interpreted. Now the Islamic section has been kept, even though only 4 out of 9 voted for keep and this group (2. and 3.) could not even agree otherwise about the general scope of the article. I am going to notify all voters then for another attempt to solve this. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. In my opinion, the islamic material is to be completely rewritten with a neutral point of view. The voting is clear to me. The article about medieval european science should be called " science in the middle ages", and this should include the byzantines.

The article about medieval "islamic science" should be cleaned, written to reflect actual achievments of "islamic science", and not trying to prove "muslims did it before Europe/christians" claims. This is not the mission of Wikipedia.

Also, articles likeIslamic contributions to Medieval Europe ( which has some scientific material) should be eliminated, or (less likely) rewritten and balanced with articles like Medieval european contributions to the Islamic world and Greek and Roman contributions to the Islamic world.--Knight1993 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm withdrawn from involvement in this article but I'll just offer a general observation which applies to a lot of what goes on in WP:

A lot of what's gone on in the various iterations of this article seems to have less than honorable motivations. I used to spend a lot of time hoping to do my part in helping to make Wikipedia better in this regard. But it is disturbing to watch progress be reversed so easily. The development of science and mathematics in the Middle Ages is a good example of a topic which is grossly misunderstood by many of us in the "West" and represents an opportunity for Wikipedia to educate. Alas, it seems that won't happen ...

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Science and Islam

I am a little reluctant to weigh in again but I feel I should give a bit of support to the assertions above. The Islamic section needs to be placed more into a context appropriate to the article concerned. If it is to be a account of Science in the Middle Ages then it should deliver a succinct record of the Islamic influences and contributions to the era as well as those of European and other derivation. If it is a study of European Science then it still requires not just an account of that arising solely from the Islamic presence in the European sphere but also a succinct account of that of the more distant Middle eastern domain. However it only needs to account for it, not fully describe it and as such the existing (Islamic world) section content is a little overbearing.

Much as it seems the scope of the article is still being hashed out possibly part of the problem is there has been a lot of content poured into the article that relates solely to the influences of the Islamic aspect of the Science of the Middle Ages. Due to the weight of that content it somewhat skews the article. For that reason the Islamic content needs a refocus so it is in context with a wider and more generalised theme if we are to pursue a goal of a more generic article describing Science in the Middle Ages. Maybe some of that (Islamic influence) content needs to move elsewhere. I see it is noted in the body of the article that the (Islamic) content repeats that available in other articles. Maybe we need to link more and describe less in regard to that Islamic content without diminishing the significance or content of the contribution of the Islamic world to the evolution of Science. The Science in the Middle Ages article can surely be provided with suitable article links to some of the bulk and detail of Islamic historical content elsewhere in articles more suitably focused on that aspect of things and where it is therefore more appropriate to give a fuller and more detailed account. Most certainly there are good reasons to include a body of detail on the significance of the Islamic sciences of the era in an account of Science in the Middle Ages but likewise I think we must be wary of allowing the article to lose it's way in delivering a well rounded account of all of the different contributions from a varied number of separate, interacting and overlapping quarters. When I first read the article what jumped out to me was that the article seemed disjointed. The section describing the Islamic world does not appear to be looking at the Science in the Middle Ages in a holistic or generic manner. Rather it lists off a large body of achievements arising from that quarter almost as though they were occurring in a vacuum and I do not think the historic evidence supports the 'vacuum' approach to things. Forgive my simplistic analysis but if I look for a mention of European interaction or influence upon the section below the heading "Islamic world" I find none. I think this is more a matter of the way that section is written than anything. Conversely if I look for record of Islamic influence upon the wider realm of the account of Science in the Middle Ages in the section of the article above the heading "Islamic world" I find plenty of references to Muslim scholars and scientists and the Islamic world. I question the appropriateness or value of describing the achievements of the Islamic world as though they occurred without a degree of both historic and contemporary influences from other quarters prevailing upon the thinking and developments of those Islamic scholars of the era. Frankly I think that sort of account does them a great injustice, surely their view at the time was not so myopic or so self referential. The content contained in the Islamic world section needs to be better integrated into a more generic historic appraisal of the era. It almost feels like it is a different article attached as an append to the main article. Further to this I feel that the Islamic section dwells too much upon religious attribution rather than scientific achievement. This is after all an article on science, not a study of religious influences. As I mentioned in an earlier comment here, the evolution of science is often in spite of the background and dominant social forces such as religious dogma. Creationism vs Evolution stands as an easy example of this. Islam has it's own creationism battles and other dogmatic beliefs that can counter scientific enquiry and discovery just as does Christianity. So why so much focus on the respective religion of the Islamic scholars and scientists, thankfully the article is not listing off a scorecard for Christian scientist of the era. Maybe we should refocus more on the science and the scientists and worry less about who they prayed to. Hence my comment that the article is disjointed. I quote from Thony C. "this section should reflect the influence of Islamic science on the development of European science", however I think all the contributing influences need a review in order to deliver an outcome that defines Science in the Middle Ages as that is something that did not arise from solely the European nor just the Islamic world alone, rather it should be a sum of all of the prevailing influences of the time toward the global evolution of the science of the era. Unless we do that the article has the wrong name. Felix505 (talk) 16:46, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It is not helpful to bring in the Nineteenth-century stereotype of the warfare of science and religion. It is especially inappropriate in an article on science in the middle ages, for in the middle ages science was frequently conducted within, and supported by, religious institutions. This applies in both Western Europe and the Islamic world.

On the other hand, it is correct that making the article a catalog of achievements in order to give different cultures their gold and silver medals moves in the wrong direction.

Good history of science discusses the ways that science develops in specific historical contexts and the various cultural and institutional factors that contributed to that development. Thus, for example, the factors that contributed to the development of science in the Abbasid Dynasty differ from those that contributed to its contemporary development in the Carolingian Renaissance. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

SteveMcCluskey (talk) your point is taken and I appreciate the referral to Conflict thesis as I was unaware of the article and enjoyed reading it. I did not mention the obvious issue of the patronage of religious institutions as I assumed it was a foregone conclusion. However you have said it yourself "frequently" and I must underline that frequently is not the same as always. Scientific breakthrough or development often challenges a paradigm and the most likely source of that locked up thought process is religious doctrine and 'existing' science. Just because it became popular to question it in the 19C does not mean it was not happening in the middle ages and indeed well prior to that. My personal view is that it is part an parcel of the human condition. That I give reference to what you appraise as a 19C argument possibly arising from my reference to creationism does not at any stretch of the imagination suggest that that I am trying to define the issue using a 19C context. If you wish wind the clock back further then we will find the dispute of sun god or moon god seems to be underpinning most of the stand out issues of contention in this article. Indeed that pretty basic animist precept is still being argued over in this article. Was it the people of the Moon god or the people of the Sun god that were the smartest people of the day. The same silly business is still grinding on and no doubt will continue for as long as humans remain on the planet to see both the sun and the moon rise over the horizon. I think your comment has made an important point or at least expressed it very succinctly, "the ways that science develops in specific historical contexts and the various cultural and institutional factors that contributed to that development". Indeed this is how religion should be dealt with in this article. The respective religious social and political contexts may have facilitated, obstructed, endorsed or denounced, but how, why, where and when is of far more interest than a scorecard of somewhat questionable value and difficult quantification.Felix505 (talk) 12:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Eurocentric bias

"During the High Middle Ages, however, the West had begun to reorganize itself and was on its way to taking again the lead in scientific discovery."

I changed it to:

"During the High Middle Ages, however, the West had begun to reorganize itself and was on its way to become advanced again."

You can change it to something else, but don't revert this change back because:

1. Europe never had a "lead on scientific discovery" untill the 16th century. Although the Hellenistic period of the Mediterranean was impresive, it was not any more advanced then the Chinese and Hindu ciilizations of the years 200 b.c - 200 a.d

2. The Renaissance started small in the Late Middle Ages, but it's great discoveries and advances came first after year 1500.

Therefore the phrase is biased and should be edited out.

I Also apologize for my english. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.214.150 (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

"Stagnation"

Here is a selection of quotes from academic work on post-Roman Europe. Beginning with the work of historians such as Peter Brown in the 1960s, the community has increasingly rejected the popular narrative of the “dark ages" as stagnant.

The quotes were not chosen to give the details of the reassessment. They were chosen to give evidence on the current understanding of professional historians of the middle ages.

• From a compendium of recent papers on the postclassical world (Bowersock, Peter Brown, Grabar): “Scholars, students, and the educated public in general should treat the period between around 250 and 800 as a distinctive and quite decisive period of history that stands on its own. It is not, as it once was for Edward Gibbon, a subject of obsessive fascination only as the story of the unraveling of a once glorious and ‘higher’ state of civilization. It was not a period of irrevocable Decline and Fall; nor was it merely a violent and hurried prelude to better things.”

• From a 2008 paper by Walter Goffart: "The period known as the early Middle Ages followed the later Roman Empire; but did it do so as night follows day or as morning follows dawn? … New stories have been told, especially in the last half-century. They have particularly affected the Roman landscape. In 1964, A. H. M. Jones published a decisive reevaluation of the late Roman world. Jones contradicted the Herder-like thesis of internal Roman decay. He argued forcefully that the later Empire was domestically sound; the internal problems of the Empire did not add up to decline. Other encouraging news soon came. As early as the 1940s, and even earlier for art history, scholars had arrived at positive assessments of the intellectual, artistic, and religious life of the late Roman world." See another of his papers and some interviews: http://www.constantinethegreatcoins.com/articles/Goffart_Rome.pdf, http://smuhlberger.blogspot.ca/2009/06/walter-goffart-on-rome-and-barbarians.htm

• Christopher Wickham, in his 2009 popular history of years 400-1000: “It is now possible to write a different sort of early medieval history. Until the 1970s its lack of evidence put researchers off; and a moralizing historiography dependent on the storyline of failure saw the centuries between 400/500 and 1000 as inferior. … It seemed obvious that it was a Bad Thing, and that European and Mediterranean societies took centuries to recover from it.”

• From a review of Julia Smith’s “Europe After Rome” (not available online sadly): "The 500 years following the collapse of the Roman Empire are still popularly perceived as Europe's 'Dark Ages', dominated by barbarian invaders, superstition and the struggle for existence. Julia Smith sweeps away this view, and instead reveals a time of great vitality and cultural diversity. She introduces us to men and women of all levels of society from slave to emperor, and through a huge range of original sources, allows them to speak to us in their own words."

• Or see any of the following: Matthew Innes’ Int. Early Med. West. Eur., Walter Ullmann, Jean-Pierre Devroey, Philippe Depreux, practically anyone who works in medieval history... Almost any history book on the middle ages begins with a caution about seeing them through the modernist teleology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.219.233 (talk) 21:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Admirable research, thank you. Although the above does seem to support my view that the word "intellectual" rather than "scientific" is relevant given the broad nature of the change, I'm not going to get involved in an edit war as it's not worth it for such a small point. I have restructured the sentence in question and the following one as they were a bit clunky but your modifications remain. Cheers, ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 07:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You're not willing to get in an edit war for such a small change? Wow, what a judgment call! Wow! Thanks for realizing that only after wasting my time! Maybe you could have figured that out before?

"Phil," if that is your real name, I wonder how many users you have chased away with your cavalier reverts, then avoiding accountability by escalating to the talk page, then saying "Gee, I didn't care anyway." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.219.233 (talk) 14:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea why your attitude continues to be so confrontational. My revert wasn't cavalier - I explained it in the edit summary at the time and again above. I don't see what "accountability" I have I avoided in doing either.► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 14:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The word intellectual was not the problem. "Stagnation" was. It is not the opinion of the profession that the middle ages were stagnant artistically, religiously or intellectually. Anyway the article should focus on science.

As for you: Let me spell it out. How to account for your behaviour?

• Why are you reverting changes if you yourself say you do not think it is "worth it" to get involved? The answer seems to be that you acted cavalierly: acting in an offhand way; showing a lack of concern.
• Why did you take me to the "talk" page if you don't think it is worth talking about? Because a good strategy to get rid of somebody is to burden them with the work of justifying an edit. The outcome is that superusers can avoid accountability by senselessly demanding scarce labor hours from outsiders.

The motto shouldn't be "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." It should be "the encyclopedia that officious superusers who do not have other uses for their time (and who memorize reams of Wikimedia's deadening editorial policies) can edit." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.84.219.233 (talk) 17:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

To the editors with interest of the history of science in European Middle Ages

I have provided some text in Carl Sagan's page with academic sources on Carl Sagan's misconceptions about the history of science in Middle Ages, and his belief in the "Conflict thesis" which is utterly refuted by the historians of science.

However, I fear that there are some with no knowledge about the history of science, who probably will not grasp that Sagan did indeed hold some popular misconception (Dark Ages Myth, Hyapatia-myth, Library of Alexandria-myth and especially the Conflict Thesis he believed in)

Here it is:

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Carl_Sagan#Criticism_section_again

Perhaps you all should attend the discussion and clarifying the issue.

En historiker (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

About Almagest

from: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#About_almagest

So:

It was not "Almagest"(Ptolemy) that laid the frames for Copernicus, but “Epitome of the Almagest"(Peuerbach and Regiomontanus) that did it. - And I provided the two sources.

"Almagest" and “Epitome of the Almagest" are not the same works.

Do you have objections?

En historiker (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

This is re my revert of your edit, [1]. I've confused two works, but I don't see how that really helps you. Your chain of causation has become too tenuous: Byzantium preserved the Almagest, but that wasn't what sparked Copernicus, it was the Epitome. So why isn't that WP:SYN? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

The section is ”Byzantine and Islamic influences”, and the subsection was “Byzantine interactions”.

So it is about “interactions” of “Byzantine” to the “European science in the Middle Ages”.

”Epitome of the Almagest” was produced by Peuerbach and Regiomontanus. The latter two were pupils of Bessarion who was educated from Constantinople, and who was responsible for introducing the Almagest to the two younger scholars. – I hardly find it tenuous, and even David C. Lindberg found it worth to mention it.

Neither Peuerbach nor Regiomontanus was a pupil of Bessarion and both of them was well acquainted with the Almagest long before they got to know Bessarion in 1460.Thony C. (talk) 11:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

“WP:SYN” means to “combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources”.

I have not done it, and BOTH my sources states directly that ”Epitome of the Almagest” gave Copernicus the foundation for the Heliocentric stance.

En historiker (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

For example the Byzantines had preserved, among other writings, Ptolemy’s Almagest which turned out crucial: Basilios Bessarion, a scholar in Constantinople, became a friend and patron of two young professors of astronomy such of Georg von Peuerbach and Regiomontanus. Due to the Fall of Constantinople in 1453 Bessarion made an effort to save the Greek intellectual legacy. As result of it, Peuerbach and Regiomontanus produced “Epitome of the Almagest”, which provided Nicolas Copernicus theoretical frames for his heliocentric theory which later revolutionized the astronomy. There is so much wrong with this brief paragraph that it difficult to know where to begin. Firstly Ptolemy’s Almagest was already translated from Greek into Latin, by an unknown translator, in Sicily in the 12th century. It was also translated from Arabic into Latin by Gerard Cremona in Spain also in the 12th century, which provided the basis for the first printed editions.

Although Basilos Bessarion studied in Constantinople, when he came to Vienna in 1460 he did so as Cardinal Bessarion, a Papal legate, on a diplomatic mission from Italy where he had resided since 1439 well before the fall of Byzantium. Neither Peuerbach nor Regiomontanus was a professor and Peuerbach at 37 hardly counts as young. Although they both taught mathematical courses in Vienna, Peuerbach was actually lecturer for poetics and dialectic. Bessarion’s request that Peuerbach produce a new translation of the Almagest from the Greek had nothing to do with Byzantium. George of Trabizond had recently produced a new Latin translation of the Almagest from the Greek, which was of very poor quality. Bessarion and George of Trabizond were intellectual and philosophical rivals and Bessarion wanted a new translation in order to expose the defects in George of Trabizond’s work. Peuerbach did not know enough Greek to do a new translation but instead set about writing his Epitome, a digest based on his prior knowledge of the existing Latin translations.Thony C. (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC) He died before he could complete it and Regiomontanus his student took over the task of finishing it. Regiomontanus published Peuerbach’s New Planetary Theory, based on his Viennese lectures in Nürnberg in 1472 and the Epitome was published in Venice in 1496. The two books together became the standard university textbooks for teaching astronomy at the close of the 15th century. Copernicus was one of those who learnt his basic geocentric astronomy and cosmology from the two Peuerbach/Regiomontanus volumes. They had nothing to do with his later turn to heliocentric astronomy. Much as I am a fan of David Lindberg his account is simply wrong. Thony C. (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm…? Some comments from me:

It is irrelevant whether it was translated before or not. The point is that this specific translated one of Bessarion was that one in which Peuerbach and Regiomontanus made their comments on.

It is beyond the point whether It happened before or after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453. The point was that it was around that time.

While Peuerbach surely cannot be labelled as young, Regiomontanus could.

The Britannica encycpledia states that Peuerbach was a “mathematician and astronomer”, and that “Between 1448 and 1451 he traveled, notably in northern Italy, where he lectured on astronomy in Padua.” - I am not getting the impression that he was only lecturer for poetics and dialectic.

With regards to your statement that “They had nothing to do with his later turn to heliocentric astronomy”, I must say that it contradicts with what Lindberg states.

The encyclopedia also states pretty much what Lindberg stated: “His demonstration of an alternative to Ptolemy’s models for the orbits of Mercury and Venus with respect to the Sun gave Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) the geometric key to reorient planetary motions around the Sun. The Epitome is still one of the best critical introductions to Ptolemy’s astronomy.”

I must say that I don’t agree wholly with you, and many of your assertions contradict my secondary sources. But David Lindberg relies also on secondary source when he refers to the Epitome, and astronomy is not his expertise field, and Britannica could be outdated.

I will try to pay a visit in the university library and see what I can find in the astronomy section.

Still, I will not revert your edition.

If there are other editors with knowledge on history of science I would like to hear your opinions.

En historiker (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to know about Peuerbach read the expert literature on him and not an outdated encyclopaedia.

There is a whole library of books and articles about what might have been Copernicus' motivation for adopting heliocentrism instead of geocentrism and the simple answer is we don't actually know.

Bessarion did not have a translation of the Almagest!

Thony C. (talk) 14:25, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

No, Bessarion certainly did not translate it as I stated in the talk-page.

I am now convinced my secondary sources are somehow weak and that it should either be deleted or at least be written in a completely different way. I have already uploaded similar texts in the “Byzantine Empire”-page and “section”-page prior the debate here. I will delete them until I may find other academic sources.

En historiker (talk) 19:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

If you want to read a modern academic account of the genesis of the Epitome and the role that it according to the author played in Copernicus' route to heliocentrism then I recommend Michael H. Shank, Regiomontanus and Astronomical Controversy in the Background of Copernicus in Feldhay and Ragep eds.,Before Copernicus: The Cultures and Contexts of Scientific Learning in the Fifteenth Century, McGill-Queens University Press, 2017. Shank describes in detail the dispute between George of Trebizond and Bessarion that led to Bessarion's request to Peuerbach that in turn led to the Epitome. Among other things he writes: Peuerbach set to work promptly, drawing on Gerard of Cremona's translation, which he allegedly knew "almost by heart," and on the Almagestum parvum (a synopsis of the first six books). Later Shank writes: The Epitome is neither translation (an oft repeated error) nor a commentary but a detailed, sometimes updated, overview of the Almagest. Swerdlow once called it "the finest textbook of Ptolemaic astronomy ever written." Shank attributes its influence on Copernicus to a proof by Regiomontanus that for the inner planets epicycle and eccentric models are equivalent, which contradicts Ptolemy's claim in the Almagest that the are for the outer planets but not for the inner ones! Thony C. (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

References

This served as an inspiration for Galileo Galilei ten centuries later

Is this true:

as Galileo cited Philoponus substantially in his works when Galileo also argued why Aristotelian physics was flawed during the Scientific Revolution?

I've read some G and I can't recall this; but my memory might be faulty William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No-one spoke up for this, so I removed it. I then browsed the John Philoponus and the connection to Byzantium seemed rather thin, so I cut more William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with En Historiker John Philoponus is a well documented Byzantium scholar who did indeed criticise much of Aristotle's theory in particular his theory of motion. It was Philoponus who first developed the impetus theory, which became dominant in the Middle Ages and was the starting point for Galileo's route to his laws of fall. So please do not remove again. Thony C. (talk) 07:46, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In that case, as I said, his page requires some work to make the connection to B clearer William M. Connolley (talk) 09:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

In the sixth century Alexandria, where Philoponus lived and worked, was part of the Byzantine Empire!Thony C. (talk) 06:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)