This is derived from my recent thread about art and religion. I’m curious as to which institution had a greater influence in the emergence of science. I believe art so superseded religion that its rudimentary tenets of pattern recognition enhanced the observation of external phenomena long before any form of faith could influence science. Undoubtedly, religious institutions propelled the development of science. I doubt in the extreme that ancient Babylonian observatories were independently run. The role of the Catholic church in the advancement or (more often) suppression of science is of such recent advent that is almost without bearing on this discussion.
My original discussion focused on art and religion because I see them as two of the elemental historic forces. Science is somewhat of a newcomer in this fray. Both of the earlier institutions have served to advance scientific thought but I feel as though the basic of nature of art is more potent in underpinning science. The exclusionary and dogmatic nature of too many religions makes them less eligible in promoting a school of thought whereby even the most deeply held tenets are summarily discarded in the face of irrefutable evidence. Science and religion have been at loggerheads for some time and even their mutually intertwined past has produced some thorny issues.
Art and its active form of achievement (i.e., state of the art) has much more in common with science. The accurate recording and replication of externally observed events, the refinement of discriminatory capacity (in its non-perjorative sense) and the reinforcement of elegance in solution and structure all point towards the importance of art as a midwife to science.
Anyway, I say religion hands down. More wars are fought over religion than art, and if necessity is the mother of invention then war is its daddy. Props to religion for recording history as well (though art has too).
Are you counting Mathematics as a science here ?
If so, commerce and construction likely had more to do with its birth than art or religion.
If not, then Mathematics needs serious consideration as the midwife of science in its own right.
-IMHO at least.
Well, I wasn’t talking about you. It is obvious you don’t read ANYTHING because I CLEARLY quoted blonde, not Grey.
It was cleared up in the first line of the OP, if you read it and got confused then that is your problem, not the OP lacking clarity. Blonde didn’t clear anything up, she got confused herself. Here is the FIRST freaking line of the OP:
Notice how he said derived? Know what that means? He also has a link to the thread in question. LONG before Blonde gets confused after spotting something shiny and apparently confuses you.
Yet another great topic. But I think it’s self-contradicting, at least on one point:
Bolding mine.
As for which institution had the greater influence, religion wins, and it’s not even a close contest. Absolutely nothing can compare to the sciences that have been developed under the watchful eye of the Church, or the bankroll of the papacy. There are few artistic institutions that can make such a claim (I’d imagine culinary institutions as well as schools of the arts can, but I’d also imagine that the genesis of those very institutions were implemented by the church).
As for the “active form,” your mention of “state of the art” I think solves that point. When Newton or Einstein were formulating their hypothoses, their main concerns had to be on the correct form, rather than the correct theological implications (if that makes a bit of sense at all).
Please try to remember that both science and art were well established long before the Catholic Church had laid a single brick on the hills of Rome. While the church did indeed influence the development of science, this was so late in the game as to be nearly irrelevant. KidCharlemagne’s observation about war technology driving science is much more pertinent.
Science was rather well fledged by the time the Catholic church reached its zenith. I am referring to how early artisans created practical methodologies that reflected the roots of scientific procedures. Mixing of root and vegetable dyes required botanical and alchemical knowledge. The shaping and firing of clays, the creation of glazes and the geological knowledge of where to find outcrops of kaolin rich deposits required solid investigative skills.
Astronomy was one of the earlier sciences to be systematized. Although it is easily said that this was a predominately religious pursuit due to the common mode of sun worship, much earlier pre-religious measurement of solar behavior would have yielded rich rewards to early agricultural civilizations. Well timed planting and harvest cycles would have huge benefits for a primative culture. Unfortunately, the farther back in time we go the more difficult it is to extricate non-religious from religious activities.
Anyway, I’m hoping we can examine some of the early technologies and trace their derivation from largely mechanical operations and enhancements versus those that became advanced through residing under the mantle of the church. There is a large difference and one that should permit isolation of significant factors to a sufficient degree where some determination might be made.
The whole calendar and its religious connotations (fertility periods, gods etc) are some of the earliest drivers of observation science. The need to be accurate and predictable made the question of planetary movements a prime challenge for most of western history; from Plato to Newton. Not only that, but the results of this religiously initiated study gave us the ideas of universality in physical phenomena. I.e. what happens here on Earth also happens up there in the heavens.
While artisanship and alchemy may have helped drive chemistry I would say that religion drove math, astronomy and ultimately physics, providing the framework on which the others rest.
I would rank the Shaman above the Cave Painter in contribution to science in general and chemistry in particular. Quinine, digitalis, and ephedrine were all used by prehistoric medicine men. If you’re trying to get someone to ingest a questionable potion in the spirit of experiment, telling them that “The gods tell me so” is probably a little more comforting than “well it IS a pretty blue and it doesn’t rub off easily!” Also, I would imagine that the practice of trepannation sparked a good amount of experiment in determining what stops blood loss and prevents infection.
Great points and ones with a lot of merit. However, I still maintain that art was around for a very long time before religion made the scene. I continue to think that art may have laid some extensive groundwork for even religion’s own ability to take root, not to mention science.
But Zenster you’re moving the goal posts. I pointed out the religious triggers for observational science and its resulting impacts on our world view. You come back with “art was around a long time before religion”. I’ve a few problems with that. If we had
A cite for art preceding religion.
A cite for conscious attempt by your artisans to create art through rigorous reexamination of their products. No one is making beautiful pots when they’re starving. Art follows security of the person which relies on comfort/food.
Specific example of art’s impact on science.
Those might help nail down the boundaries you want to discuss.
