Badmouthing the Middle Ages

[ceo_esq]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[catbasket]

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

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

 

[Melendwyr]

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

In what domains, exactly?

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

 

[kleinjahr]

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

 

[Darat]

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

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

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

 

[dogjones]

This book seems to assert that the history of science has been leaping along since before, during and after the middle ages. Anyone read it?

 

[Mojo]

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

And, as that great authority W. C. Fields said:

Throughout the Middle Ages, the use of liquor was universal, and drunkeness was so common it was unnoticed. In fact, the reason they called it the Middle Ages was because no one was able to walk home unless they were between two other fellows.

I was the middle guy.

 

[ceo_esq]

In what domains, exactly?

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

I refer you to the "Is religion slowing us down?" thread, where sources, information and arguments on these matters are set forth in some detail.

 

[ceo_esq]

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

If you're interested in medieval technological advances, you might find this post (and some of its neighbors) of interest as well.

 

[Melendwyr]

Read the thread. Your conclusions are wrong at best.

 

[ceo_esq]

Read the thread.

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

Your conclusions are wrong at best.

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

 

[kedo1981]

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

 

[ceo_esq]

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

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

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

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

 

[Kopji]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[luchog]

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

On the other hand, empirical philosophy and the basis of the scientific method of investigation were formalized in large part during the Late Middle Ages by Franciscan friar Roger Bacon.

 

[kedo1981]

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

 

[Powa]

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

 

[Ed]

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

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

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

 

[kedo1981]

sorry, typo, the word is washed

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Thanks Mojo,

Start the week with a smile!

YBW