Evidence of alien life expected in next few decades

[makattak]

===================================================

A fine resource is Hannen's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science ( http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science-ebook/dp/B003B02OJQ/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1428589896&sr=8-3&keywords=foundations+of+modern+science )

A nice review/overview can be found here:
http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/

Hannen was not the first to document all this, but he is the most readable.  I have read several of the earlier works he relied on and they were informative but a bit dry. They are mentioned in Hannen's bibliography and the review linked above.  Hannen is quite enjoyable to read.



(1)

Curse you, Roo_ster, for giving me another book to add to my list.

[lee n. field]

We know it DID happen, because of us.

Once.  One is not a good number to try to leverage off of.

[charby]

If you are alluding to the library at Alexandria there is a lot of misinformation out there about that also.

http://www.ancient.eu/article/207/

Persia not Alexandria, remember middle east was the middle of two worlds at the time, with trade between the East and West.

Some of the problems in Iraq currently is that some of the fanatics are destroying the history of the area that doesn't align with their particular beliefs.

Here is a Muslim that contributed a lot to science http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_ibn_Zakariya_al-Razi

[roo_ster]

Curse you, Roo_ster, for giving me another book to add to my list.

My work is done here.

[charby]

No, because it is ignorant anti-Roman Catholic kool-aid.  And protestant and then anti-clerical political propaganda.

I still self Identify as a Roman Catholic, born, raised and but full of independent thought. I drove the nuns and priests nuts in Catholic school when I started seriously questioning Catholicism and history of the church. A very rosy picture was painted, but I started reading otherwise. Probably the worst thing my parents did those poor nuns and priests was that they let me get an adult library card at the age of 11 so I could go read and explore the adult section of the public library. I was 21 years old when the Internet as we know it was available to everyone, Mosaic browser. So I had my opinions about religion in general made long before the dawn of the fringe internet blogger.

When I get home later tonight I have some real academic sources that contradict your findings from your one book, I see that it is written by a scholar but it is still "popular" literature, I see that the reviews also tend to be skewed by folks who want to see their religion. AKA, wouldn't stand up as a source in a bibliography on a research paper.

The part of the atheist reviewer that bothers me that makes his review of the book, very skewed is

Medieval science and technology to bring the recent research on the subject to a more general audience and to counter the biased myths about it being a Dark Age of irrational superstition. Thankfully I can now cross that off my to do list, because Hannam's superb book has done the job for me and in fine style.

His method of research is that he is just only going to find facts that support what he wants to believe and not look for facts that contradict what he believes.

[MechAg94]

If you are alluding to the library at Alexandria there is a lot of misinformation out there about that also.

http://www.ancient.eu/article/207/

Thanks.  That is interesting.  I hadn't realized there were multiple stories about that.

[RoadKingLarry]

Because its true? The early Christian Catholic-State was a bunch of self serving aholes that wanted to keep the masses down and profit for themselves.

So, they grew up to become American politicians?

[charby]

So, they grew up to become American politicians?

One could probably say that about most politicians across the ages. Actually there are very few politicians that aren't self-serving aholes, they disguise it well, but they are to the core.

[roo_ster]

I still self Identify as a Roman Catholic, born, raised and but full of independent thought. I drove the nuns and priests nuts in Catholic school when I started seriously questioning Catholicism and history of the church. A very rosy picture was painted, but I started reading otherwise. Probably the worst thing my parents did those poor nuns and priests was that they let me get an adult library card at the age of 11 so I could go read and explore the adult section of the public library. I was 21 years old when the Internet as we know it was available to everyone, Mosaic browser. So I had my opinions about religion in general made long before the dawn of the fringe internet blogger.

When I get home later tonight I have some real academic sources that contradict your findings from your one book, I see that it is written by a scholar but it is still "popular" literature, I see that the reviews also tend to be skewed by folks who want to see their religion. AKA, wouldn't stand up as a source in a bibliography on a research paper.

The part of the atheist reviewer that bothers me that makes his review of the book, very skewed is

His method of research is that he is just only going to find facts that support what he wants to believe and not look for facts that contradict what he believes.

Sorry only the ignorant or those with axes to grind buy the medieval rc church as a bunch of anti science persecutors any more.  The data is that lopsided and has been available in easily accessible for for decades. 

Hannens is only one of the latest books.  A drier and more academic work is grants.  Grant goes in depth describing the various ideas and philosophy in enough depth that it is a good intro to them.  Some folk are not up to reading in depth on the various cosmologies and such.  Did i mention dry?  Anyways grant and hannens other predecessors covered the ground in depth.

Even protestants like me have to acknowledge our debt the the rc church for its unequaled contributions to the advancement of science in the middle ages.  Without the medival rc church contemporary science is inconceivable.

[Blakenzy]

I just think that people give these unsubstantiated claims mainly to find something to latch on to because we are unbelievably frightened of us being "all there is" and nothing more out there. Like a small child who fell asleep under a row of seats in an large auditorium, only to wake up in the middle of the night once everyone is gone and everything locked down... Being all alone is scary and sometimes we need imaginary friends.

[charby]

Sorry only the ignorant or those with axes to grind buy the medieval rc church as a bunch of anti science persecutors any more.  The data is that lopsided and has been available in easily accessible for for decades. 

Hannens is only one of the latest books.  A drier and more academic work is grants.  Grant goes in depth describing the various ideas and philosophy in enough depth that it is a good intro to them.  Some folk are not up to reading in depth on the various cosmologies and such.  Did i mention dry?  Anyways grant and hannens other predecessors covered the ground in depth.

Even protestants like me have to acknowledge our debt the the rc church for its unequaled contributions to the advancement of science in the middle ages.  Without the medival rc church contemporary science is inconceivable.

I have read way too much Draper and White, and people who agreed with them in the past. I stumbled upon Thomas Woods tonight, and started reading a bit of his stuff on the church. I was also series of papers from 1983 that was picking apart Draper and White that was showing evidence that was some persecution of scientists, but at a lesser scale. seemed it was a more pagan vs Christianity then church vs science.

I did see the Grant in a few bibliographies. I'll check out his papers in a few weeks when I have more time to read.

[Calumus]

http://www.ancient.eu/article/207/

Thanks for that site.