Talk:Condemnations (University of Paris)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
A fact from Condemnations (University of Paris) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 21 April 2008.
Wikipedia


[edit] Papal Authority

While the sources cited say that Tempier's investigation of heresy was conducted, at least in part, under Papal authority; they do not say that the actual condemnations promulgated under Papal authority. --Joey1898 23:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethnocentric Point of View

The "preview" on Wikipedia's main page said this lead to the "Birth of Science", but shouldn't it be reworded to say "the Birth of Science in the Western World"? A number of civilizations in the Middle East and Asia were far more advanced than Europe was during its Dark Ages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.194.226.35 (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what was meant was more along the lines of modern science - Aristotellian science was of course the system that had existed in Europe and the Middle East before it was displaced by the Condemnations.
Perhaps you have shown another problem: the assumption that Europe was in the "Dark Ages" at this time. The term "Dark Ages" is no longer used by historians today - the traditional assumptions of backwardness in the arts, technology, political and social organizations of the time have been shown to be outdated. The correct term is "Early Middle Ages" (up to AD 1000); the Condemnations of Paris, on the other hand, took place in the High Middle Ages, following on from the Renaissance of the 12th century. This was a period of great advance in Europe.
Other civilisations were of course more technologically advanced at this time - China being the best example. However, for all its achievements (as you will see from History of science and technology in China), China failed to produce science. The Greeks came closest to science, and after them the Islamic philosophers. The importance of the Condemnations (along with other important developments in medieval Europe) is that they forced scholars not to take previous assumptions for granted, which led toward Western Science and (ultimately) the modern science which is based upon it. --Grimhelm (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

How could replacement of one dogma with another be considered as a birth date of science?? Did Aristotel ever claimed to be a prophet or any kind of messenger who tells absolute divine truth? – No It was church who dogmatized his teachings, because at the time when church was founded only Aritotels teachings were trying to give some answers to wide range of questions not covered by holly books. So church simply adopted his theories and dogmatized them. And it took almost 1000 years for church to realize that some of his teachings actually contradict to holly books. Church dogmatized his theories, church then condemned them. What it has to do with science? – Nothing! Claiming that Paris condemnation gave a start to a modern science is not just baseless it is simply ridiculous. Methods and approaches used by Aristotel and his contemporaries were much closer to modern science than those used by authors of Paris condemnations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.231.132 (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The Church never "dogmatised" Aristotle's teachings. It would not even have been possible for the Church in Europe to do so, and then fail to notice the apparent contradictions for over a thousand years as you suggest, because much of their influence in the 13th century had been a reintroduction from Arab texts. Aristotle's teachings were not dogmatised, but they were highly respected by philosophers in Europe and the Middle East (and indeed they are still are). The question of the period was how philosophy could be reconciled with religious belief; the Averroeists taught what is often summarised as the "double truth" (that what it is true in philosophy does not have to be true in religion, and vice versa); the Thomists taught that apparent contradictions were based on a misunderstanding of either faith or reason.
Saying that Aristotle had a more scientific approach than Tempier is irrelevant as to whether the events initiated modern science (or at least had positive effects on its development). The discussion is not over the scientific merits of the authors of the Condemnation, but about the effect that the Condemnation had on science. Try and explain how the rejection of geomancy and witchcraft had no effect on science. Or perhaps Aristotle's stance on the concept of the vacuum? It had previously been accepted based on Aristotle that a vacuum could not exist, but within the immediate aftermath of the Condemnations, it was admitted that such a position was possible. The most basic piece of evidence is that scientists were simply more imaginative after the Condemnations.
Lastly, I can not see why you would refer to the claims as "baseless", when the historical evidence of their effects (as well as the historians of science who analysed them) are laid out quite clearly in this article. I would suggest that your argument may be based on popular assumptions rather than academic research. --Grimhelm (talk) 16:58, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


Church did dogmatise some postulates of Aristotellian science, most notably geocentric universe model and furiously defended it against all revisionist attempts. Remember repressions suffered by Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno from hands of inquisition. And these actions had much stronger and evident effect on hindering scientific development than Paris condemnation on stimulating it. But my main objection was on calling Paris condemnations a birth day of modern science. Having effect on development of science and be considered as an immediate cause of its existence (that what term “birth date” implies) are completely different things. Yes, arguably, this event may be ONE of many factors which in long term gave rise to modern science. But it can’t be considered as the main or even the most important one. Was there anything what could be considered a modern science next day after condemnations? A year later? A century later? So how can we consider that event a starting point of modern science if there was no modern science for ages to come after it? After all, how can condemnation and prohibition of something be considered a starting point of modern science??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.63.92 (talk) 07:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, these are the assumptions of traditional popular histories, which have been shown to be incorrect by the most recent research of historians of science. For example, it was widely believed that all medieval thinkers thought the world was flat, whereas it was in fact the earth's spherity was universally accepted in the Middle Ages (see here). Similarly, it is often forgotten that Copernicus, the scientist and father of heliocentrism, was a Catholic cleric (with evidence suggesting that, more specifically, he was a priest). Pope Clement VII was impressed by a public lecture on heliocentrism that he requested in Rome, and Copernicus' book De revolutionibus was dedicated to Pope Paul III; it was received with great interest by many throughout the Church. The Church never dogmatised heliocentrism - the Church can and has only ever dogmatised theological positions.
Later, many of Galileo's discoveries were confirmed by Jesuit astronomers, and the prominent scientists among the clergy were excited by his hypothesis of heliocentrism. It was only when he began persistently teaching his then unproven hypothesis as truth that he was subjected to censure (some parts of his theory were actually later proven wrong, it must be noted; he felt, for example, that the motion of the Earth was the cause of the tides). And even with the frenzy that normally surrounds the Galileo affair, it is useful to remember that it is virtually the only case that springs to mind. (Bruno is the other example you mention, although this was based on his theological beliefs, and had nothing to do with Copernicanism.)
The Church certainly did more to stimulate science than to stifle it: Nicolas Steno (father of geology), Roger Boscovich (father of modern atomic theory) and Gregor Mendel (father of genetics) were all priests. The Jesuits were the order most associated with the concept of the "scientist-priest" (of which a whole list exists).
But you ask whether there was any immediate increase in science after the Condemnations. Robert Grosseteste (contemporary with the Condemnations of 1210) and Roger Bacon (contemporary with the effects all the condemnations in this article) are seen as precursors of the modern scientific method. Greater emphasis was placed on experiment. Much important scientific work was undertaken in the early 14th century: William of Ockham introduced the principle of parsimony, while Jean Buridan and Nicole Oresme reinvestigated Aristotelian mechanics. (Buridan developed the theory that impetus - which paved the way for Copernicus and was the first step toward the modern concept of inertia). The Oxford Calculators mathematically analysed the kinematics of motion. It was only with disasters such as the Black Death in 1348 that the massive scientific development was suddenly halted. The Scientific Revolution was resumed during the Renaissance, and was well rooted in the work that had been carried out in the Middle Ages. --Grimhelm (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, but I don't follow your logic. According to this article, condemnation of 1210 states: "Neither the books of Aristotle on natural philosophy or their commentaries are to be read at Paris in public or secret, and this we forbid under penalty of excommunication."

From article about Robert Grosseteste:

"In his works of 1220-1235, in particular the Aristotelian commentaries, Grosseteste laid out the framework for the proper methods of science... Grosseteste was the first of the Scholastics to fully understand Aristotle's vision of the dual path of scientific reasoning: generalizing from particular observations into a universal law, and then back again from universal laws to prediction of particulars."
Do you mean that condemnations in fact had opposite effect and stimulated interest towards Aristotellian works?
To put it simple, the essence of this article is:
1. Some clerics condemned and prohibited some ancient scientific works.
2. It gave a birth to science.
Huh? What is the logic? Yes I don't have academic knowledge on this matter and never did any deep original research either. But that is the good think about logic, if something is apparently illogical; there is no need to dig for details to understand that it is wrong. Saying that condemnations and prohibitions gave birth to science is similar to presenting induction of tyranny as a birth day of democracy or introduction of censorship as a freedom of speech or declaration of war as a commencement of peace!
From this [1]timeline I can’t see any indirect effects of condemnations on development of scientific method. The closest significant even is 50 years after the latest condemnation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.63.92 (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon read Aristotle's works, as did many in the period. You neglected to mention that, also according to this article, the condemnations of 1210 were "restricted to the Arts faculty at the University of Paris. Theologians were therefore left free to read the prohibited works…" The condemned works at least "continued to be read in Paris in private, and there are also signs that their discussion had become public by 1240." The point was not that the Condemnations stamped out Aristotle (which they clearly did not), but that their effect was in undermining his works as the unquestioned basis of scientific discussion.
You asked whether science was emerging in the 13th century, and indeed it was. Also from this article, historians of science "no longer fully endorse his view that modern science started in 1277". The reason for this is that days or events that represent a change in the course of history are never isolated from the broader historical context. Their effects are felt over the wider course of history, and are recognised by historians as significant in retrospect. In this context, I feel it would be useful to quote the historian Hywel Williams, from Days that Changed the World:
"The currents of history run deep and often unseen beneath the everyday flow of events… [but] there are moments when these currents rise to the surface - with an effect that is often shattering, occassionally moving, but always transforming - to shed an exceptional light on the meaning of history. …the patterns of world history are also shaped by less obviously dramatic occurrences and by processes whose significance only became apparent much later."
The rudiments of modern science were already appearing before 1277, but scientific progress accelerated after 1277. As Duhem said, 1277 was the most dramatic event that represented the break with Aristotle. (Grosseteste, whose work emphasised the importance of mathematics on science, was the only one I mentioned who died before 1277.) Your analogy was that censorship cannot be considered the birth of free speech; but, on the other hand, declaring previous assumptions to be false is not an attack on science, but something that science does everyday. You overlook the stated facts in the article: the most obvious being that that within three years the possibility of the vacuum was accepted, and that this gave rise to dynamics. It was Buridan, Oresme and the Oxford Calculators who made important developments to dynamics in the following century.
To refine your simplified logic:
1. Some clerics condemned certain flawed positions of ancient philosophers, astrologers, works on witchcraft, and some contemporary theologians.
2. It had positive effects on scientific thought, and represented the birth of science.
Now that's still more simplified than outlined in the article, but it is a bit more accurate than your logic. Ultimately, we go with the conclusions of the historians of science and the sources cited for articles such as this, and broadly, these are they. Also, the list you to which you refer ("Timeline of the history of scientific method") has its own flaws - it fails to mention Grosseteste, Bacon, Buridan or Oresme; and it is very short on sources. --Grimhelm (talk) 13:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
This topic is an excellent example of how we could treat competing points of view Wikipedia style. There are at least three different opinions in the historical literature on the effects of the condemnation; this article should present all of them.
  • It seems to treat fairly well the view held by Duhem, and in a more moderate form by Grant, holding that the condemnations freed scholars to speculate about alternative world models and physical laws, contrary to those held by Aristotle. The biggest gap at present is that it doesn't deal with the problem that these alternatives were treated hypothetically or "according to imagination."
  • I don't see much mention of the rival view held by Jean Gimpel, Gordon Leff (in his early writings) and others who maintained that the condemnations suppressed scientific inquiry and led to a rise of skepticism.
  • There's also a third point of view, touched on in the works of William Courtenay that the dialectic between the absolute and ordained powers of God sharpened epistemological issues. It was conventional that three sources of knowledge were logic, experience, and revelation. After the Condemnations of 1277, which emphasized God's ability to establish the orders of nature and of salvation freely without any logical constraints, logic was no longer probative by itself. Thus we began to see an increasing concern with epistemological questions in philosophy, with observation in science, and with revelation in theology.
Documenting the varied points of view among historians would do much to strengthen this article. --SteveMcCluskey (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)