"The Dark Ages are coming back fast… "

[ceo_esq]

Even if the Middle Ages were no worse than quaint (and they were much worse, immeasurably worse than quaint), the ideas current then have to be called obsolete today.

That's certainly true of some ideas, not true of others - for example, the characteristically modern emphasis on reason and logic, or for that matter what historian of science Lynn White called "the invention of invention", were medieval phenomena that never became obsolete. Not to mention a great many philosophical, juridical, and other notions. Other ideas didn't become obsolete so much as get built upon, even though the "state of the art" has advanced considerably in so many areas.

If Randi uses “medieval” to describe modern attempts to promote exploded modes of thinking, that’s an acceptable kind of rhetoric. He objects to those who would slip backward and downward into magical, irrational thinking.

Yes, but why repetitively associate that specifically with the Middle Ages - an era that laid the foundations of modern science and during which (as Prof. Grant persuasively argues) the Age of Reason was born? Doesn't that obscure the fact that it was during the Renaissance (the post-medieval one, not the 12th-Century Renaissance) that - in historian Jean Harris' words - "magic, divination, astrology, and other forms of what moderns dismiss as occultism experienced a notable revival in Europe, shaping both elite and popular culture"?

 

[Zygar]

I've never understood the term "Dark Ages" to mean "The Middle Ages". It is in reference to the periods of human culture where enlightenment was scarce, and reason was not in abundance. The standard cultural bias against the Middle Ages is definitely unfounded, but Dark Ages and Middle Ages are not interchangeable in my vocabulary. And I expect that you'd find that to be the case for many others.

 

[ceo_esq]

I've never understood the term "Dark Ages" to mean "The Middle Ages". It is in reference to the periods of human culture where enlightenment was scarce, and reason was not in abundance. The standard cultural bias against the Middle Ages is definitely unfounded, but Dark Ages and Middle Ages are not interchangeable in my vocabulary. And I expect that you'd find that to be the case for many others.

I don't think anyone's asserted the contrary here; yet it's worth noting that the first definition of "Dark Ages" given in the Random House Unabridged is "the period in European history from about a.d. 476 to about 1000", and the second definition is "the whole of the Middle Ages, from about a.d. 476 to the Renaissance". The OED is basically consistent with that, calling it a "term sometimes applied to the period of the Middle Ages ... often restricted to the early period of the Middle Ages". The term originated, in fact, specifically in reference to a period lasting at least up to the 14th century (as such, it actually overlapped both the Carolingian Renaissance and the Twelfth-Century Renaissance). Other uses of the term really only arose by supposed analogy to the medieval (or early medieval) period.

 

[YouBelieveWHAT?]

Oh, you mean the "Organized" Skeptics?

No, they meet in Small Gods Street, over the cats meat shop.

With apologies to Terry Pratchett.....

YBW

 

[Ceritus]

The end of the 11/10/06 commentary was interesting:

"The Dark Ages are coming back fast… "

It doesn't really seem like that at all IMO. Of course, "Dark Ages" is just obvious exxageration, probably emotional at that, but it seems like we've lost the Dark Ages and have been moving away from them as a whole for a while now.

Is a "Dark Ages" image/scenario necessary to keep the skeptical movement and organized skepticism afloat?

what does your avatar mean dude.

 

[Mojo]

What "skeptical movement" and "organized skepticism" are you talking about?

You keep referring to this, but you never say what you mean.

So far, we know that T'ai is a member of the "Organised Skeptical Movement" (or at least thinks he is), and that he is under the impression that at least one other person is also a member:

How do you see our movement changing in 100 years time?

But he hasn't said what the movement's aims are or who else is a member.

 

[CFLarsen]

So far, we know that T'ai is a member of the "Organised Skeptical Movement" (or at least thinks he is), and that he is under the impression that at least one other person is also a member: But he hasn't said what the movement's aims are or who else is a member.

I've opened a thread on this:

The Chronology of T'ai Chi's "Organized Skeptical Movement" claim

 

[T'ai Chi]

The Dark Ages as opposed to the Bright Ages ?

Hmm

 

[Pyrrho]

The end of the 11/10/06 commentary was interesting:

"The Dark Ages are coming back fast… "

It doesn't really seem like that at all IMO. Of course, "Dark Ages" is just obvious exxageration, probably emotional at that, but it seems like we've lost the Dark Ages and have been moving away from them as a whole for a while now.

Is a "Dark Ages" image/scenario necessary to keep the skeptical movement and organized skepticism afloat?

In better context:

http://www.randi.org/jr/2006-11/111006big.html#i7

As I frequently tell you, folks, you just can't make up this stuff. And there are tens of thousands of naïfs out there who will read and actually believe this baloney. They're the ones who also invest in lottery tickets and stick magnets on their heads to align the few thoughts that may pop in there from time to time. The Dark Ages are coming back fast…

For such people, the Dark Ages are indeed "coming back fast", because they believe in silly superstition and much of the silliness from Sylvia Browne, et. al. Such beliefs keep people ignorant and stupid.

And no, we don't need scare tactics to remain viable. We're viable for other reasons, none of which involve wondering how Christmas is celebrated in heaven, or other flummery propagated by the likes of Sylvia Browne.

As others have pointed out, use of the term "Dark Ages" to denote an era of superstition and folly is something of a misnomer, but as a popular term, it communicates the essential idea quite well: that being steeped in superstitious belief is antithetical to rationality and enlightened thought.