Talk:European science in the Middle Ages

Does the Scientific Revolution article really need to be summarized in an article about the history of science in the Middle Ages? The SR didn't begin until the Middle Ages were pretty much over by anyone's definition, no? --Arkuat 04:39, 2005 July 17 (UTC)

I am adding the "POV" warning to this article. If I was a native english speaker I would change this myself.

There's no mention in the text to the Renaissance of the 12th century. Worse: many good things that came trough this medieval renaissance of the 12th century are displayed as if it was from the "traditional" Renaissance (Wich, by the way, was mainly an artistic movement with little scientific production. The true Renaissance in terms of scientific konwledge was the one that ocurrede in the 12th century.)

PS.: I also agree with Arkuat about the Scientific Revolution summarization. --201.50.111.233 11:56, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

"Because of this regression in knowledge, the long period that followed is also known as the Dark Ages." <-- This is no longer true among historians or medievalists. --201.50.114.212 14:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Expansion and translation

I've taken upon myself the task of further expanding and re-organizing this article as of today. I will do so with the help of some sections of the Portuguese article, which looks good (I'm a native speaker of the language, by the way).

I've started the expansion by adding a section for "Great names in medieval science" as the Portuguese article offers, because an overall synopsis of those people's contribution is for many people enough and they won't go about reading every article on every medieval thinker. The adding of this section produced a number of redundancies on the article that I will be taking care of ASAP.

--Kripkenstein 03:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's great! To edit and refine this article (and, specially, the Portuguese version) has been a kind of hobby to me in the past months. It's so good to have company here! Especially now that I'm busy in "real life" and won’t be able to do many substantial edits. --Leinad ¬ ^{pois não?} 04:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You did a nice job at the Portuguese article, Leinad! Hope you can look at the English version now and then to correct any possible mistakes. This article might have a brilliant future ahead. --Kripkenstein 19:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic science

Note: Some lines about Al-Farabi, Avicenna, Omar Khayyám and Averroes's natural philosophy should be added to the Islamic science section. --Kripkenstein 20:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Peer review citation needed

Please comment on the discussion at Talk:History of scientific method#Peer review in medieval Islam?. --SteveMcCluskey 16:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Eyeglasses

How could the work of the the 13th century scholar Roger Bacon contribute to the invention of eyeglasses in the 12th century. Would someone who knows this field fix this howler? Rwflammang 21:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

• Good catch! Deor 22:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Eyeglasses were invented around 1299 or 1350 probably in Venice. Don't know what's that 12th doing here. Isidoros47 (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian Science

I would love to see a citation for the work of Aryabhata in the Indian Science section - the claims are pretty grand (elliptical heliocentric orbits driven by gravity!) and I'm skeptical without some support. The Indian Science articles elsewhere on Wikipedia are full of questionable claims that make Copernicus and Newton sound like afterthoughts - although this problem is not unique to the Indian Science pages (see the article on Oresme, for example). Xanthoptica 04:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

"Medieval" means European

Including the sciense of these three civilizations in an article that deals with a period that is intended for periodization of European history is problematic. The influence that other scientific traditions had on Europe is very relevant, but not to have separate sections for them as if the article was actually about "the history of science c. 500-1500".

Peter ^Isotalo 10:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Article move

I think that the moving of this article from "History of science in the Middle Ages" to "Science in the Middle Ages" should have been discussed before being undertaken. I have no great objection to the new title, but similar articles are titled History of science in early cultures, History of science in Classical Antiquity, History of science in the Renaissance, and so forth. Unless a consensus can be developed to move all these similarly, this article will stand as rather an odd man out. Deor 11:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"Medieval", "Classical Antiquity", "the Renaissance" are all terms that by themselves define the topic as historical. "Early cultures" is less well-defined but I don't see that "history of" is really motivated there either. And if we're to broaden our scope beyond that of the historical study of science, which is far more reasonable in an encyclopedia, the comparison should be with all topics related to the Middle Ages. Just about all of these are called either "medieval XXX" or "XXX in the Middle Ages". If anything, it is the articles on the history of science that are the oddities.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Dark Ages were dark!

I would like to bring to everybodys attention that the following passage form "Science in the Middle Ages" called "Dark Ages?" is a very biased piece of writing committed to obvious whitewashing of this phase of the history. The respected researches cited in the article are clearly on a mission to clear blemish in the history of the church and religion they love and respect. Even as they are noted historians, it is obvious that they have a very strong commitment to an ideology that has much to gain in the process they have instigated. I strongly suggest that when they say they are correcting stereotypes, they are in fact intionally altering history to suit there own needs.

Bittitohtori (talk) 20:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Bittitohtori

Here is the section in question;

Science in the Middle Ages (section)

Dark Ages?

Dark Ages?

The stereotype of the Middle Ages as a supposed "Dark Age" is reflected in the popular views regarding the study of nature during the period. The contemporary historians of science David Lindberg and Ronald Numbers discuss the widespread popular belief that the Middle Ages was a "time of ignorance and superstition", the blame of which is to be laid on the Christian Church for allegedly "placing the word of religious authorities over personal experience and rational activity", and emphasize that this view is essentially a caricature.[12] Contrary to common belief, Lindberg say that "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led. There was no warfare between science and the church".[13] And Edward Grant, writes: "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed in the Age of Reason [the 18th century], they were only made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities".[14]

For instance, a claim that was first propagated in the 19th century[15] and is still very common in popular culture is the supposition that the people from the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat. This claim is mistaken, as Lindberg and Numbers write: "there was scarcely a Christian scholar of the Middle Ages who did not acknowledge [Earth's] sphericity and even know its approximate circumference."[16][15] Misconceptions such as: "the Church prohibited autopsies and dissections during the Middle Ages", "the rise of Christianity killed off ancient science", and "the medieval Christian church suppressed the growth of the natural sciences", are all reported by Numbers as examples of widely popular myths that still pass as historical truth, even though they are not supported by current historical research.[17]

What is the issue, exactly? I think that if you are going to argue that there was such a thing as the "dark ages", you are probably going to be laughed at and ignored. We just don't use that term anymore; it is the "early Middle Ages". Adam Bishop (talk) 22:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Dark ages" were not dark

I agree with Adam. Contemporary science uproots non-scientific myths about "dark" ages. Why not to trust respected scientists only because of their religion? Every scientist(even atheist) does believe in something that may influence his work. If these men can't be trusted then who can? Those who invented or propagated the concept of "dark ages"?

Isn't it ironical that it were anti-Christian and anti-clerical philosophers who greatly supported the idea of the "dark ages"(because middle ages were an age of faith) in an attempt to discredit the Church and maybe even Christianity.

The concept of "dark ages" has no scientific evidence behind it. It is almost solely based on anti-clerical and also anti-Christian propaganda.

Isidoros47 (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

West bias

This article has far too much bias toward Western Europe (i.e. not even just Europe but Western Europe). Aside from the fact that it does not even discuss the goings-on in the rest of the world, it barely acknowledges that the West's advancements in the late Middle Ages were due to being educated by far more advanced civilizations.

--Mcorazao (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the Western-Europe bias, but my understanding is that the term "Middle Ages" is only applicable to Europe. Perhaps we should move the non-European stuff (and a summary of the European) to a global article with a suitable name (if one doesn't already exist), and make this a Euro-centric article (perhaps under the name "Science in Europe during the Middle Ages", as a summary style sub-article. Bluap (talk) 04:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, this becomes a tomayto-tomahto sort of thing to some extent. Traditionally "Western" scholars have viewed what happened in Europe between the "Fall of Rome" and the "Age of Discovery" to be completely independent of the rest of the world and, therefore, the Middle Ages of Western Europe (mind you it is wrong to say "Europe" in lieu of "Western Europe") could be basically separated from what happened elsewhere. In other words, the developments and discoveries in the West were mostly going on with minimal influence from anywhere else. This is widely recognized now as a gross distortion. Certainly one cannot speak about the early Middle Ages without talking about the Eastern Roman Empire. It certainly was more important in the world than Western Europe was and frankly was the source of most technological innovation in the Mediterranean region and Europe. In the middle period it was predominantly the Arabs with the Eastern Empire lagging behind that was the source of innovation (again even in Western Europe). You really can't say that Western Europe started to really "think for itself" until the very late Middle Ages and, even then, it wasn't until the Renaissance that you could say Western Europe was making major contributions in its own right.

The point is that you have to be careful about what lines you draw since the lines themselves always imply some POV. Even if you are going to limit the discussion to the continent of Europe excluding the Eastern Romans is wrong.

I don't necessarily disagree with creating a retitled article that limits the discussion to a specific region but if that is done it should be done carefully both being specific about the region (e.g. Western Europe vs. all of Europe) and ensuring that even with this limitation the article is more clear about the source of the technological developments (e.g. being clear that Western innovation during the Middle Ages was to a large degree a matter of copying the Arabs and the "Byzantines").

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Intro

I wanted to propose the following rewrite to the intro.

Science in the Middle Ages progressed dramatically from the time of antiquity in areas as diverse as astronomy, medicine, and mathematics. Whereas the ancient cultures of the world (prior to the fall of Rome and the dawn of Islam) had developed many of the foundations of science, it was during the Middle Ages that the scientific method was born and science became a formal discipline separate from philosophy. Although there were scientific discoveries throughout the world, the Islamic world around the Mediterranean and China led the Medieval age in major accomplishments thanks to scholars such as Alhazen and Arzachel.

The Roman/Byzantine Empire, which was the most sophisticated culture during antiquity, suffered dramatic losses which limited its scientific prowess during the Medieval period. Christian Western Europe had suffered a catastrophic loss of fortune following the fall of the Western Roman Empire but thanks to Church scholars such as Aquinas and Buridan carried on the spirit of scientific inquiry which would later lead to Europe's taking the lead in science during the Scientific Revolution following the Middle Ages.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Science separated from Philosophy?

The claim in the present article, and in the proposal above as well, that in the Middle Ages "science became a formal discipline separate from philosophy" is demonstrably false. Throughout the High Middle Ages and into the Renaissance much of science was taught in the universities as the study of the ancient natural philosophers, especially Aristotle. The close ties of science to philosophy continued through the Seventeenth Century, at least. Newton titled his great work on physical science the Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Descartes's Principles of Philosophy and other writings deal extensively with the physical sciences; and Galileo insisted that he be appointed "Mathematician and Philosopher" by the Grand Duke of Tuscany.

The introduction is supposed to summarize what is presented in the body of the article. A word search on this article for "philosophy" shows no place where the supposed separation from philosophy is discussed, although many examples are given of science being studied in the middle ages as philosophy by philosophers.

Clearly some definition of what is meant is needed here.

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Three things:

1. You are correct that the text of the article should expand on what is in the introduction and this point is not expounded upon. Frankly I have been doing some piecemeal edits to the article and have modified the intro but not enhanced all of the other sections to reflect this.
2. You are focusing on Western Europe. Your statement is true to a degree if you focus on that one limited part of the world. But certainly in the Muslim world the separation had emerged (if not to the same degree as in the modern world). Western Europe would inherit that separation from Muslim science gradually over the course of the Scientific Revolution (and the Renaissance).
3. Be careful about terminology. When it says that science and philosophy separated this is meant in the modern sense of the words. The fact that Newton called science "Natural Philosophy" is a separate issue. The term philosopher (in various forms) was used for a variety of things until very recently. However over time various euphemisms emerged to distinguish the different disciplines (e.g. "natural philosophy" was one pre-modern term that tended to be used to refer to physics and related sciences).

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Reorganize?

Looking through the article, I find it places catalogues of accomplishments and biographical sketches of great figures before the narrative of what happened and how and why.

I propose rearranging the article as follows, putting the listlike material at the end:

1. The Middle Ages: Western Europe
   1. Overview
   2. Early Middle Ages
   3. High Middle Ages
   4. Late Middle Ages
   5. Renaissance of the 15th century
   6. Dark Ages?
2. Science in Asia and Africa
   1. Islamic science
   2. Indian science
   3. Chinese science
3. Great names of science figures in medieval Europe science
4. Major Accomplishments

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't object to a reorganization. The article as it stands is a bit hokey. My thoughts:

• I kind of like the accomplishments section earlier in the article. Not that I'm married to the idea but I think it's nice if an article can proceed from summaries of info the majority of readers might find most interesting to the more mundane details.
• I like the idea of simply listing the major contributors to Medieval science without geography. I hesitated to do this since, without making the list exceedingly long, this would rightly imply that many of the Christian Western European names would need to be removed (they were "great" in the context of Western Europe but in the world context a lot of them were not that significant). I was afraid removing the names might offend a lot of contributors.
• I wonder about the separation of the Middle Ages into different cultures and geographies. It is certainly known that Western Europe and the Byzantine Empire were heavily influenced by the Muslim world (I doubt many scholars would disagree that the "progress" they made would not have happened without them). There are even substantial connections between India and the Muslim world. Similarly grouping the Muslim world into one lump is somewhat unfair. This was a diverse set of cultures and often multiple states. The Arabic language did make them close to each other but, at the same time, there were other close relationships (e.g. Muslim Spain actually had a lot of very close cultural contact with Christian Western Europe).
• The Byzantine Empire does not have its own section even though it was more scientifically advanced during most of the Middle Ages than Western Europe. If the geography-specific separation is to be maintained this seems a glaring omission.

--Mcorazao (talk) 18:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the science of the Byzantine Empire is omitted because it has its own article as Byzantine science and an accompanying list of List of Byzantine scientists. Not that this article could not add a number of names. Dimadick (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a good argument. If an article says it is about widgets then it should be about all widgets even if there are other articles that go into more detail on specific types of widgets. In particular, though, Muslim science has its own section and this certainly has its own articles.

--Mcorazao (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's another try based on the comments so far. I've added Byzantine science to the Asia and Africa section, per MOS it can be a brief abbreviation of the more detailed treatment in Byzantine science, just as is already done in the other geographical subdivisions.

I disagree with the idea of putting the list of accomplishments before the narrative, but that may be a matter of style. The Manual of Style says this about embedded lists": "Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain." Of course these are useful lists, but they don't disrupt the flow of the discussion when placed after the main text.

1. The Middle Ages: Western Europe
   1. Overview
   2. Early Middle Ages
   3. High Middle Ages
   4. Late Middle Ages
   5. Renaissance of the 15th century
   6. Dark Ages?
2. Science in Asia and Africa
   1. Byzantine science
   2. Islamic science
   3. Indian science
   4. Chinese science
3. Major Accomplishments
4. Great names of science figures in medieval Europe science

--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is ok but there is still a bias problem. The first two major sections are "A group of cultures that were scientifically primitive" and "All the other cultures". Following the style you're going after I would recommend something like the following.

• Science in the Muslim World
• Science in China
• Science in India
• Science in the Byzantine Empire
• Science in Christian Western Europe
  • Early Middle Ages
  • High Middle Ages
  • Late Middle Ages
• Major Accomplishments
• Great figures in medieval science

Or if you're dying to categorize it more,

• Science in the Muslim World
  • Science in Persia
  • Science in Egypt
  • Science in Muslim Spain
• Science in East/South Asia
  • Science in China
  • Science in India
• Science in the Christian World
  • Science in the Byzantine Empire
  • Science in Western Europe
    • Early Middle Ages
    • High Middle Ages
    • Late Middle Ages
• Major Accomplishments
• Great figures in medieval science

However, I would still argue that there should be a section of some kind in the front sort of summarizing what happened in the Middle Ages (what I tried to do with the Major Accomplishments section). Granted the intro sort of does this but it does so very briefly (and it should be brief).

BTW, the MOS entry you mention does not really apply. The Major Accomplishments section is not a list of links. It is a list but it is a list written with details in prose.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth: "Middle Ages" has traditionally been used specifically in the periodization of European history (see the first sentence of our article on the topic). I prefer SteveMcClusky's suggested reorganization because the "group of cultures that were scientifically primitive" should be the focus of this article, with due acknowledgment, of course, for the influences of other cultures and traditions on the situation in western Europe. The article wasn't designed, nor should it have been, to highlight the developments in science occurring at the same time in China or the Islamic or Byzantine spheres. Those are treated in separate articles, which are properly linked from the summary treatments here. The additions that you've been making lately to highlight Islamic developments—some of which, even though they may have occurred in the Iberian peninsula, are rather tangential to the developments in medieval Europe—are problematic in this context (though I haven't been contesting them so far), and I'd recommend that you pull back a bit on your efforts to deal with the "bias" in this article. Deor (talk) 02:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there is a debate you feel is necessary please do bring it out. Having said that, the title of the article does not say Western Europe, or even Europe. Although the term "Middle Ages" has traditionally been used to refer to the West this is not so much the case anymore largely because the old bias that the West's history was independent of the rest of the world has been rejected by modern scholarship. The term Middle Ages is now regularly used in many contexts to talk about the Muslims and the Byzantines as their history is seen as closely tied to Europe.

I would say that it is probably appropriate to have an article of specifically discussing Western Christian Europe but that's not what the title of this article says. The earlier suggestion of creating such an article maybe will address the concerns that you have.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I should point out that I was not the one who added the original mentions of developments in non-Western cultures. --Mcorazao (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Is "Middle Ages" European?

Mcorazao has raised a difficult issue, and any solution to it will have to involve drawing a somewhat arbitrary line. The question is whether we mean by the term "Middle Ages" anything that happened between 450 and 1350 (or thereabouts), or do we mean a historically defined event in the history of Europe? As a historian, I am disturbed about the implications of the simple chronological definition; if we used it, then a discussion of Inca, Maya, and Aztec science would belong in this article. The article should have more focus than that, and I see historical interaction as the simplest way to rule out the American contributions.

To most medievalists, the Middle Ages is generally characterized as referring to a period in European (sometimes Western European) history. This pattern is reflected in Wikipedia on WP:WikiProject Middle Ages, Portal:Middle Ages, and Category:Middle Ages. From that perspective, an article on Science in the Middle Ages should focus primarily on Science in Europe, and touch tangentially on contemporary developments of science in other parts of the world -- especially when science in those areas influenced science in medieval Europe. In that regard, science in Islam is an important player, science in India had largely an indirect influence (by way of Islam), science in Byzantium had little (and late) influence, as Byzantine influence in Western Europe was chiefly,but not exclusively, associated with the Renaissance, and Science in China had very little influence.

I suggest those as guidelines for the organization of this article, and that concept was reflected in my proposed outline.

Turning to a related issue, from this perspective the recent fork to create a new article Science in Medieval Western Europe is undesirable and I would recommend deleting the new article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Steve McCluskey that the terminus “Middle Ages” refers to an epoch in European history and therefore this article should emphasise the development of science within Europe in this period. Naturally it should, as it does, show what is going on outside of Europe and how through the appropriation of Greco-Arabic science (and through this appropriation, the appropriation tangentially of some elements of Indian and Chinese science and technology) how European medieval science received a massive boost. However within the history of science I think it is also important to reflect that which is known as the “Needham Question” namely the fact that at the beginning of the 15th century, at the latest, both Arabic and Chinese science went into steep declines whereas medieval European science evolved/developed into Renaissance science a distinctive new departure that however retains medieval science at its core and Renaissance science in its turn developed/evolved into early modern science, which grew into universal modern science. This chain of development alone justifies, in my opinion, the emphasis of European science in this article at the cost of its stronger contemporaneous rivals, Arabic, Indian and Chinese science.Thony C. (talk) 17:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

PROD Science in Medieval Western Europe

As discussed above, I have proposed deleting the new article Science in Medieval Western Europe as an undesirable content fork. Please discuss the issue here. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Errr, well, first of all please use the proper template. Calling this a content fork is a strawman argument at best. What I think you're going for is proposing a (re-)merge. Please change the template accordingly.

Anyway, to respond:

• The Middle Ages is a time period. The time period was classically defined based on Europe's history but, obviously, Western Europe was not not the only populated region. Having an article that is specific about this region without stating so implies something that is POV.
• In general I don't disagree that all cultures of the world are appropriate to discuss in an article about a time period in world history. I would argue, however -- and feel free to disagree -- that in an article about scientific history it is appropriate to focus on the more scientifically advanced civilizations than try to include a sampling of every civilization on the planet. I'm not saying that the American civilizations cannot be mentioned but given their lack of world-wide impact I do not have a problem with de-emphasizing them in an article that is talking about science at a global level.
• It is certainly true that "Middle Ages" or "Medieval Age" as a reference to Western Europe is "traditional" but this is no longer considered the only way to use the term, or even necessarily the "correct" way (e.g. Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia, Framing the Early Middle Ages: Europe and the Mediterranean).
• Although it is slightly tangential I'll mention that I dispute the suggestion that the Byzantine influence had little influence on Western Europe. For a long time most of Western Europe's knowledge of science filtered in from the Byzantine Empire (although certainly it is true that the amount of knowledge transfer in the earlier centuries was limited). It was late in the Middle Ages that the West shifted its focus to just absorbing knowledge directly from the Muslims (and then at that time the knowledge transfer became much larger than it had been).

So I'll reiterate that I believe that to the extent that authors want a West-specific article (which seems like a reasonable thing to me) then the article should be named accordingly. And I do think it is interesting to discuss what happened scientifically at a world-wide level rather than just discussing things at the level of local cultures. Focusing only on the latter can give a distorted view of history.

--Mcorazao (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Medieval Science ... Encyclopedia treats science in the Islamic world, but only mentions China in passing. (e.g. the origins of technological, but not scientific, developments such as the stirrup and horseshoe, gunpowder and paper that had significant influence in medieval Europe. Chris Wickham's book on Framing the Early Middle Ages focuses on Europe and it's neighbors around the Mediterranean; in his work Africa means North Africa (esp. Egypt) and Asia is primarily Asia minor (China is briefly mentioned in his discussion only 4 times to provide comparisons with Europe, twice included along with Mexico/Yucatan). The examples you give seem to support the traditional view of the Middle Ages rather than your more inclusive position.

As to the template involved, it seemed to me that a Proposed Deletion was what was involved here, rather than a merge. but I don't want to get hung up on technicalities.

On your Byzantine tangent, let me only say that in the Early Middle Ages, there are scarcely any texts from Greek sources; after the year 1,100 a few Greek texts appear, but they are vastly outnumbered by the texts in Arabic (Greeks such as Euclid, Aristotle, and Ptolemy were known chiefly through translations from the Arabic), and more Greek texts arrive in the 1400's in association with the Council of Florence (1431-9) and the fall of Constantinople (1453).--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, two things on the template: 1) your reason given was a content fork which is supposed to mean that the two articles are intended to serve exactly the same purpose. Obviously you know that wasn't my intention. 2) Generally the only other reasons for a proposed deletion boil down to saying that the content is not useful and can be removed from Wikipedia altogether which obviously is not what you're trying to say.

In any event, I'm not quite sure what your point is on the references. You were arguing that the Middle Ages refers to Western Europe only and these sources clearly do not treat the term in that fashion. So these do support my point. It is true that they do not really address other parts of the world that much. If you want to look at sources that use the term with respect to China look at Coming Out of the Middle Ages: Comparative Reflections on China and the West or Tracing the Way: Spiritual Dimensions of the World Religions (also, you can look at The Encyclopedia of World History, pg. 103; it briefly talks about the use of the "medieval" label in the context of Chinese and Mediterranean cultures). Kung's book, Tracing ..., in particular talks about the "Middle Ages" of different cultures. He discusses the periods in an overlapping sense but the precise beginnings and ends of each are a little different (of course, even for Europe the precise beginning and end of the Middle Ages is not universally defined).

Regarding the Byzantine thing, you're not wrong in most of what you're saying but you're focusing somewhat on the wrong things. When talking about the Middle Ages in Western Europe there is a tendency to focus on the end of that period since that's when the most exciting things happened but if you are going to make an article about the whole Middle Ages you have to look at the whole period. Obviously the majority of the scientific works of the period were in Arabic but the West was largely ignorant of those works for a long time. For centuries to the extent that Western Europe was aware of classical knowledge or any new scientific thought it was to a great extent through the Church (i.e. the fact that the eastern and western parts of the Church were still united). Apart from that Western visitors to Constantinople or other Byzantine ports might pick up various tidbits. I agree that it was not a lot but, then, there was not a lot going on in Western Europe scientifically. Eventually, the West began to establish more direct contact with the Muslims (particularly because of Al-Andalus) which opened the floodgates in terms their absorbing knowledge, but this was later in that age.

--Mcorazao (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

If this was purely to do with terminology, I think I would agree with SteveMcCluskey. However, I don't think it is - there was enough interaction between China, India, the Muslim world and (even if mainly through the Muslim world) western Europe during the period to justify an article surveying science in all four geographical areas during some period roughly corresponding to the European Middle Ages. And, particularly allowing for the amount of material, this should probably not be the same article as the detailed one on medieval western European science. So in practice I agree with Mcorazao, though further consideration of the titles (and possibly the exact scopes) of both articles may be advisable. PWilkinson (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

(De-dent) I agree with those people who think that there needs to be a world-wide article about science during this period (exact timescale to be decided). I also agree that there is enough detailed information about the history of science in Western Europe for there to be a sub-article about science in Western Europe during this period. Likewise, there should ideally be more sub-articles about science in China / the Arab World / etc. If you read the wikipedia guideline on summary style, you can see how such articles should be structured: a broad overview, split into detailed sub-articles where appropriate. Bluap (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pope Sylvester II

The new entry on Pope Sylvester II (born Gerbert of Aurillac) says: "From the model of schools in Islamic Cordoba, he introduced to Christian Europe the liberal arts education of the trivium (grammar, logic, rhetoric) that prepared one to master the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy)".

This is dubious on two grounds:

• Most clearly, the model of the liberal arts had been known and used in Latin Europe from at least the time of Boethius in the fifth century, and was followed in Carolingian schools in the ninth century.
• Secondly, the use of the model of the Trivium and Quadrivium is extremely unlikely in Arabic schools, since it was a Roman development and the Arabs derived their knowledge of philosophy (falasifa) from the Greeks.

Thus Gerbert did not introduce the liberal arts education into Christian Europe and he could not have introduced it from Cordoba, where it was not followed. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My mistake. I used this source while editing Gerbert's article:

Salhab, Walid Amine. (2006). The Knights Templar of the Middle East: The Hidden History of the Islamic Origins of Freemasonry. San Francisco: Red Wheel/Weiser LLC. ISBN 1-57863-346-X.

...and should have noted that Salhab states Gerbert's efforts were a reintroduction of emphasis laid upon liberal arts that had already been known in Europe. My mistake.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I added another small entry on Constantine the African. I hope there's nothing wrong with that like there was with Gerbert.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 22:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Chinese science

I hope I haven't deleted material that anyone was especially fond of, but I felt that the section on Chinese science needed to be scrapped in favor of a complete re-write. I have expanded it with all new material from a variety of sources.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 00:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The re-write is very well-written in my opinion. I've replicated much of the material from your re-write into other articles related to Chinese science and technology, if you don't mind. Jagged 85 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind too much, but I would prefer that you paraphrase the material I wrote instead, since people may become confused reading the same exact words in several different articles, wondering where the material originally came from.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes

Several of the statements/claims in the "Major Accomplishments" and "Great names of science in medieval Europe" sections are either grossly exaggerated or factual inaccurate or just plain wrong, I intend to start correcting these as of tomorrow. As there has been some extensive discussion of this article fairly recently and I don’t wish to step on anybodies toes I am posting this statement of intension in order to give anybody who is interested the chance to scrutinise my changes and possibly challenge or even improve them. Till tomorrow!Thony C. (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to have been a determined attempt to "Islamize" the article to the extent of taking out some information which was referenced. The whole section "Major accomplishments", seems to have been added fairly recently, and has since grown to a bloated state. It almost seems be an attempt to pre-empt or duplicate the rest of the article, and might be better beneath the ordered historical account which originally came first. Xandar (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Xander I have removed some of your changes from the major accomplishments sections simply because they are wrong or at best misleading. In order to keep the peace I shall explain why and what is wrong. Your claim that Robert Grosseteste “began to define laws of refraction” is very misleading and so must be removed. I was slightly curious because you accused me of “taking out some information which was referenced”. Now I hold lectures on the history of optics and also have something of a soft spot for Robert Grosseteste and knew that the claim that his work on refraction was in anyway special or worthy of note is simple wrong (except in the case of the rainbow but that is not being discussed here). I did not know Ms. Parkinson’s book and so was not sure whether she was being misquoted or misinterpreted or whether her information was wrong. I have now acquired a copy of her book and it would appear that both are the case; she writes, “RG describes the science of optics, concentrating especially on geometrical optics and the path of light rays, reflections and refraction. … He thereby makes an early attempt at determining a quantitative law of refraction.” We have here not the “beginning” but an “early attempt” so you have misquoted her however her “early attempt” is also not correct. Euclid discusses refraction already in the fourth century BCE and Ptolemaeus did substantive quantatitive analysis of refraction in the attempt to form a law in the second century CE. It is in fact Ptolemaeus’ work that Grosseteste discusses in his own optical thesis (see A. C. Crombie, “Grosseteste and Experimental Science”, OUP 1953, pp.120ff). This of course ignores the work of Islamic scientist most of which Grosseteste was not aware of. Alhazen wrote extensively about refraction in the tenth century formulating an incorrect quantitative law and his predecessor Ibn Sahl had actually correctly defined Snell’s law in his treatise “On the Burning Instruments” (see Roshi Rashed, “A Pioneer in Anaclastics: Ibn Sahl on Burning Mirrors and Lenses”, Isis, Vol. 81, 1990, pp. 464-491). A reference is not always a valid reference! Again on Peter Olivi and the imputus theory Ms. Parkinson is not wholly correct. He did indeed discuss the impetus theory but he rejected it as had Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon before him so quoting him as a source for its success is rather strange. Why Olivi and not Aquinas and Bacon both considerably more well known and influential and why not the long list of other scholastic thinkers who did not reject but support the theory? (see Marshall Clagett. “The Science of Mechanics in the Middle Ages”, University of Wisconsin Press, 1959, pp. 505-525 and Glick, Livesey and Wallis Eds., “Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia”, Routledge, 2005, pp.267-269). I have removed your comment on the invention of reading glasses because it is highly misleading. There is no known connection between the theoretical discussion of optics in Europe in the 13th century and the invention of spectacles in Northern Italy. The invention of spectacles appears to have been the result of simple trial and error by artisans and to have no scientific basis what so ever (see Glick et al. as above pp. 167-168 and Edward Rosen, “The Invention of Eyeglasses”, Journal of the History of Medicine, Vol. 11, 1956 pp. 13-53 & 183-218).

To your comments on the “Islamizing” of the article you should note the following. The word “Islamic” in the concept Islamic Science does not denote the Islamic religion but denotes science that was carried out within the Islamic cultural area in this case the Islamic Empire. The scientist who carried out this work were Muslims, Christians, Jews Sabians, Zoroastrians and possibly a couple of Hindus and Buddhists as well. An alternative designation is Arabic science where the word “Arabic” does not denote the Arab Peoples but refers to the language in which the majority of this science was written. The writers were Arabs, Persians, Uzbeks, and many others. It would appear from some of your other minor changes that you are editing this article according to your religious convictions and not according to historical fact. In the Middle Ages the areas of sciences practiced other than Islamic/Arabic are Byzantine, Chinese, Hindu/Indian (where Hindu refers to the culture rather than the religion), European and Mayan there is no historical terminus “European Christian Science”.

Your claim that, “From the 12th century onwards, Christian scientists in western Europe began to make significant advances in fields from optics and physics, to surgery, engineering and navigation” seems to imply that they made advances beyond those of the Chinese or Islamic scientists, this is not the case. Through the appropriation of Greco-Arabic science in the 12th century European scholars were able slowly over the next centuries to bring Europe up to the level of their Islamic rivals but it is not until the 15th or even the 16th century that they succeeded in surpassing them.

I know this explanation is rather long but I want you to understand why I have eliminated those additions of yours from the text that I have.Thony C. (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Logicus comment: Well spoken Thony C. on the issue of replacing the unjustifiable qualifiers 'Islmaic' and 'Muslim' with the alternative 'Arabic', referring to the language of scholarship rather than the person's religion, which is surely irrelevant. This change should be implemented throughout Wikipedia history of science articles.--Logicus (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Was the 15th century scientifically backward ?

The article currently claims

"But this initial period [i.e. the 15th century] is usually seen as one of scientific backwardness. There were no new developments in physics or astronomy, and the reverence for classical sources further enshrined the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic views of the universe."

But surely far from science being backward and thus regressing in the 15th century, in physics the Parisian impetus dynamics analyses of motion spread to Germany, Italy and Eastern Europe, Nicholas of Cusa's impetus dynamics De Ludo Globi introduced the crucial thought experiment later adopted by Galileo that a ball set rolling around the surface of a gravitationally concentric sphere would continue forever, and Paul of Venice seems to have been the first to draw the logical conclusion from Thomist inertial Aristotelian dynamics that "Unequal weights fall with the same speed in the void because the relation between their weight and there mass has the same value." (i.e. v α w/w, hence v = k, a constant) [see Duhem's analysis on p423 of Roger Ariew's Medieval Cosmology.], a conclusion traditionally falsely attributed to Galileo in positivist history of science.

It is also difficult to believe Leonardo was not responsible for any scientific advances, in anatomy, aeronautics, or whatever.

And in mathematical astronomy there were important developments in trigonometry by Regiomontanus later used by Tycho in his parallax analyses in his 1573 De stella nova, and also the publication of the progressive Alfonsine Tables. It should also be noted that scientific progress within the Aristotelian and Ptolemaic view of the universe is not impossible.

But moreover, on the other hand it has never been demonstrated that Buridan's impetus dynamics was original in any respect, indeed if any, compared with Avicenna's impetus theory rather than simply repeating it, and thus that there was any great advance in impetus dynamics in the 14th century over the 11th century.

I therefore flag this apparently false claim for a reliable source citation, and request it be replete with an actual justifying quotation from that source in accordance with the Wikipedia:Verifiability courtesy requirement stated in its footnote 2. --Logicus (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the world of Wikipedia, where entire centuries of time may be dumbed down and simplified into one egregious statement. Instead of just tagging that statement, though, feel free to be bold and add new information from scholarly sources on the 15th century.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Very funny. Actually it was Thorndike's thesis that 15th century scientifically backward. Just waiting to see if anybody can give a reliable quote.