5 ms·

These historians of science that technologists avoid consulting in your estimation, are they going to refute the dark ages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_

These historians of science that technologists avoid consulting in your estimation, are they going to refute the dark ages? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages_(historiography) "The term employs traditional light-versus-darkness imagery to contrast the era's "darkness" (lack of records) with earlier and later periods of "light" (abundance of records).[3]" Not having records being categorized metaphorically as darkness, and more records as "Enlightenment" is pretty high regard for a word used the same way in the contemporary context as something an accountant or dentist keeps in a filing cabinet. I'd say these "historians of science" you speak of would corroborate that the lost works of Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid and the near permanent loss of Plato's works to the whole of Europe for hundreds if not over a thousand years as, uh, kind of a big deal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Textual_sources_and_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato#Textual_sources_and_hist...

meheleventyone 6y ago
Loss of records is not loss of skills or knowledge though. And the Dark Ages wiki you link talks about how the term fell out of use amongst historians for being inaccurate. To quote: "Science historian David C. Lindberg criticised the public use of 'dark ages' to describe the entire Middle Ages as "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition" for which "blame is most often laid at the feet of the Christian church, which is alleged to have placed religious authority over personal experience and rational activity".[52] Historian of science Edward Grant writes that "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed in the Age of Reason, they were made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities".[53] Furthermore, Lindberg says that, contrary to common belief, "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".[54] Because of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire due to the Migration Period a lot of classical Greek texts were lost there, but part of these texts survived and they were studied widely in the Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate. Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the High Middle Ages stronger monarchies emerged; borders were restored after the invasions of Vikings and Magyars; technological developments and agricultural innovations were made which increased the food supply and population. And the rejuvenation of science and scholarship in the West was due in large part to the new availability of Latin translations of Aristotle.[55]" ETA: Also didn't realise you're the same person I replied to below!
- ziaddotcom 6y ago
  No worries if you didn't catch that I was the same person. Your catch proves that issue is not remotely settled, and to my mind, indicates that more rigorous counsel with historians will only add depth to debate, rather than resolve it.
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    I don't think UncleMeat's frustration is that these things are easily resolved but that people aren't getting even the basics right. Like the continuing lay beliefs about "the dark ages". And by doing so people are constructing false narratives of how knowledge has been lost from their own ignorance.
    - ziaddotcom 6y ago
      I think UncleMeat's wife probably knows a hell of a lot more than I do about history, and contextualizing whatever horseshittery that has been propagated about the notion of the dark ages. The problem is rather than provide a link to a book or an article in refutation to Jonathan Blow or myself, UncleMeat has sort of just rattled off some history and said their wife is a history professor. Hardly what I think UncleMeat would have been satisfied as enough scholarly rigor for Jonathan Blow his talk with remotely the same framing. The retort along the lines of "but this is just a lil ole internet forum" goes out the window, when the call for rigor was made on said forum by said person. I would suggest UncleMeat just advocate that people like Jonathan Blow take the history out entirely, and argue why this contemporary technology isn't good enough relative to our resources and skills.
      - meheleventyone 6y ago
        Personally I think UncleMeat's criticism is dead on and exactly why as you say Jon should take the historical argument out. Although you'd get a much less pithy title without collapsing civilizations. Arguments about sourcing feel like face saving rather than legitimate criticism of the view bought forward by UncleMeat. After all the original video is completely unsourced but apparently beyond reproach in that regard. Also where we have sourcing (for example the Dark Ages wiki) it only strengthens the point made by UncleMeat as they were indeed correct about the views of historians. More broadly if we want discussion to be well sourced we shouldn't apply that selectively and in particular selectively against the people who disagree with us.
UncleMeat 6y ago
> These historians of science that technologists avoid consulting in your estimation, are they going to refute the dark ages? Largely yes. The term "the dark ages" was developed by Petrarch, a man who was so obsessed with the Romans that he had himself crowned with laurels to signify his inheritance of Rome. And this is also largely unrelated to history of science, since "the dark ages" (as expressed by both Petrarch and pre-20th century historians) does not refer to loss of scientific knowledge. > Not having records being categorized metaphorically as darkness, and more records as "Enlightenment" is pretty high regard for a word used the same way in the contemporary context as something an accountant or dentist keeps in a filing cabinet. But Petrarch was hundreds of years before the Enlightenment and would have hated it. He believed that the Romans were the peak of civilization ever. It was not possible to top them. The idea that modern humans could improve upon what they did would have been anathema to Petrarch and most Renaissance thinkers. But most importantly, these historians of science would take issue with Blow's conclusions from specific examples. He lists a few "lost" technologies and then concluded methods to prevent technological loss that are entirely unrelated to the examples he lists. At most, all they demonstrate is that it is possible for some things to go unrecorded.
- ziaddotcom 6y ago
  I think you've just committed a sort of armchair dilettante history off the top of the dome with lack of reference to a scholarly source of History you accused Jonathan of doing. meheleventyone has demonstrated how easily even just referencing the article I myself posted could undermine my argument.
  - UncleMeat 6y ago
    > I think you've just committed a sort of armchair dilettante history off the top of the dome with lack of reference to a scholarly source of History you accused Jonathan of doing. I'm not a historian. But my wife is. And she ranted for a while after the first ten minutes of this talk for precisely this reason. I could have provided more scholarly sources. It is an internet forum - I didn't think people would call me names if I didn't. That historians of science don't like the term "The Dark Ages" isn't exactly cutting edge scholarship.

meheleventyone 6y ago

Loss of records is not loss of skills or knowledge though. And the Dark Ages wiki you link talks about how the term fell out of use amongst historians for being inaccurate. To quote: "Science historian David C. Lindberg criticised the public use of 'dark ages' to describe the entire Middle Ages as "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition" for which "blame is most often laid at the feet of the Christian church, which is alleged to have placed religious authority over personal experience and rational activity".[52] Historian of science Edward Grant writes that "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed in the Age of Reason, they were made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities".[53] Furthermore, Lindberg says that, contrary to common belief, "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".[54] Because of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire due to the Migration Period a lot of classical Greek texts were lost there, but part of these texts survived and they were studied widely in the Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate. Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the High Middle Ages stronger monarchies emerged; borders were restored after the invasions of Vikings and Magyars; technological developments and agricultural innovations were made which increased the food supply and population. And the rejuvenation of science and scholarship in the West was due in large part to the new availability of Latin translations of Aristotle.[55]" ETA: Also didn't realise you're the same person I replied to below!

ziaddotcom 6y ago
No worries if you didn't catch that I was the same person. Your catch proves that issue is not remotely settled, and to my mind, indicates that more rigorous counsel with historians will only add depth to debate, rather than resolve it.
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  I don't think UncleMeat's frustration is that these things are easily resolved but that people aren't getting even the basics right. Like the continuing lay beliefs about "the dark ages". And by doing so people are constructing false narratives of how knowledge has been lost from their own ignorance.
  - ziaddotcom 6y ago
    I think UncleMeat's wife probably knows a hell of a lot more than I do about history, and contextualizing whatever horseshittery that has been propagated about the notion of the dark ages. The problem is rather than provide a link to a book or an article in refutation to Jonathan Blow or myself, UncleMeat has sort of just rattled off some history and said their wife is a history professor. Hardly what I think UncleMeat would have been satisfied as enough scholarly rigor for Jonathan Blow his talk with remotely the same framing. The retort along the lines of "but this is just a lil ole internet forum" goes out the window, when the call for rigor was made on said forum by said person. I would suggest UncleMeat just advocate that people like Jonathan Blow take the history out entirely, and argue why this contemporary technology isn't good enough relative to our resources and skills.
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      Personally I think UncleMeat's criticism is dead on and exactly why as you say Jon should take the historical argument out. Although you'd get a much less pithy title without collapsing civilizations. Arguments about sourcing feel like face saving rather than legitimate criticism of the view bought forward by UncleMeat. After all the original video is completely unsourced but apparently beyond reproach in that regard. Also where we have sourcing (for example the Dark Ages wiki) it only strengthens the point made by UncleMeat as they were indeed correct about the views of historians. More broadly if we want discussion to be well sourced we shouldn't apply that selectively and in particular selectively against the people who disagree with us.

UncleMeat 6y ago

> These historians of science that technologists avoid consulting in your estimation, are they going to refute the dark ages? Largely yes. The term "the dark ages" was developed by Petrarch, a man who was so obsessed with the Romans that he had himself crowned with laurels to signify his inheritance of Rome. And this is also largely unrelated to history of science, since "the dark ages" (as expressed by both Petrarch and pre-20th century historians) does not refer to loss of scientific knowledge. > Not having records being categorized metaphorically as darkness, and more records as "Enlightenment" is pretty high regard for a word used the same way in the contemporary context as something an accountant or dentist keeps in a filing cabinet. But Petrarch was hundreds of years before the Enlightenment and would have hated it. He believed that the Romans were the peak of civilization ever. It was not possible to top them. The idea that modern humans could improve upon what they did would have been anathema to Petrarch and most Renaissance thinkers. But most importantly, these historians of science would take issue with Blow's conclusions from specific examples. He lists a few "lost" technologies and then concluded methods to prevent technological loss that are entirely unrelated to the examples he lists. At most, all they demonstrate is that it is possible for some things to go unrecorded.

ziaddotcom 6y ago
I think you've just committed a sort of armchair dilettante history off the top of the dome with lack of reference to a scholarly source of History you accused Jonathan of doing. meheleventyone has demonstrated how easily even just referencing the article I myself posted could undermine my argument.
- UncleMeat 6y ago
  > I think you've just committed a sort of armchair dilettante history off the top of the dome with lack of reference to a scholarly source of History you accused Jonathan of doing. I'm not a historian. But my wife is. And she ranted for a while after the first ten minutes of this talk for precisely this reason. I could have provided more scholarly sources. It is an internet forum - I didn't think people would call me names if I didn't. That historians of science don't like the term "The Dark Ages" isn't exactly cutting edge scholarship.