md-2000 was wrong, so it’s no use quoting him as an authority. 
I guess he didn’t think about Archimedes, not to mention many other ancient Greek astronomers, engineers, physicians, etc.
No ‘perhaps’ about it.
Yes, perhaps was a little weak. I should have gone with probably, most likely, or even almost certainly. But I’m not one to let questionable provenance get in the way of a good story.
I gathered that! 
I think md-2000 was making a valid point. He didn’t say that people like Archimedes didn’t exist. He said they weren’t regarded by the ancient Greeks as being as good as people like Aristotle. And that’s true. The view back then would have been that Archimedes was merely a technician - clever perhaps in his own way - but certainly not in the same class as a philosopher like Aristotle.
Do you have any reputable cite for that, or is that just, like, your opinion, man? 
Archimedes was actually a great mathematician and theoretician, as well as being a practical inventor.
When you talk about Aristotle, do you mean his reputation the ancient world or the medieval world?
That’s it. I’m done here.
Sounds like an interesting book.
I’ve done quite a bit of reading about mapmaking and more recent science history, such as the Royal Society. I know next to nothing about what the ancients thought of their predecessors. I had certainly thought there had been a lengthy period during which many of the teachings of the ancients had been forgotten by most of western Europe. I seem to recall reading about specific individuals/time periods during which ancient texts were repopularized. (While I have no scientific training, I usually consider pretty good about weeding out completely meritless pap. I may be mistaken! ;))
And some really old beliefs - such as the Ptolemaic model and aristotelean cosmology, lasted far longer than would be expected if there had been continuous ongoing observation and testing. My understanding was that much of the progress for 1400 years or so was taking place in the Arab world, and not communicated to the west.
I’m happy to read more and find my presumptions inaccurate. (Note, my understanding did not result from school studies, but instead, from recreational reading well less than 40 yrs ago.)
Archimedes was well-regarded enough in ancient times that after his death we have this report of the reaction of the General of the conquering force
" Marcellus was distressed by this; he had him properly buried and his relatives inquired for—to whom the name and memory of Archimedes were an honour. " (this is from Livy - so an ancient (first century AD) appraisal of Archimedes as remarkable."
This quote is from another first century source
“At the capture of Syracuse Marcellus had been aware that his victory had been held up much and long by Archimedes’ machines. However, pleased with the man’s exceptional skill, he gave out that his life was to be spared, putting almost as much glory in saving Archimedes as in crushing Syracuse.”
What I found interesting in Seb Falk’s book was just how much communication was taking place between the Arab world and medieval monasteries and universities, far earlier than I thought it was.
He says of the 1100s:
That was the great period of Christian scientific translation, when scholars in Spain and southern Italy worked feverishly to make Latin versions of the most important works of Arabic and Greek learning.
He goes into detail, and gives many examples.
What comes strongly out of his book is a sense of how much progress there was in astronomy, how much was happening all the time, with new information being circulated rapidly all over Europe. He convincingly shows a feeling of intellectual liveliness, inquisitiveness, debate, and invention that we don’t usually associate with the late medieval period.
I’m not a scientist or a historian. You seem far more into this than I. Are Falk’s theories widely accepted? Or is he an outlier.
Unfortunately, his book is not available through my library, and I RARELY buy books.
Yes, it’s totally uncontroversial, nothing new. He’s only presenting current accepted academic knowledge and thinking about the medieval period.
His book was only published late last year, so it may not be in your library yet.
Here’s an interview with Seb Falk by BBC History Magazine, which also chose his book as one of its Books of the Year for 2020
Just curious, do you/Falk believe the pace of progress in Europe continued at a pace equivalent to Arab lands/China?
And is it believed that the progress that took place in Europe was knowing/intentional extension upon the teachings of the ancients?
I’ll see if I can track down Falk’s book - and maybe do some more reading on the topic.
Progress in what? During which periods? Progress was uneven and proceeded at different speeds in different fields of knowledge, in different times and places.
There were several centuries in which progress in ‘science’ and technology was far greater in the Arab/Indian/Chinese worlds.
Certainly. There was no feeling that the ancients texts were totally authoritative or contained all knowledge.
They had great prestige, but there was always room for new knowledge. Given that ancient writers often disagreed with each other and contradicted each other, and held a large spectrum of opinion, there was a lot of room for debate, even within the framework of ancient texts. But they were certainly not considered the final word.
New knowledge was always coming in from the Middle East (Byzantium as well as the Arab world), and innovations in technology, mathematics, astronomy were taking place in Western Europe itself too.
Wikipedia has a long list of medieval technological innovations:
Indian-Arabic numerals came into greater use, and new books were continually being written with new advances in in astronomy, mathematics, optics.
See also:
In the 13th century Roger Bacon – at the request of the Pope – wrote a popular and clear account of the process of scientific investigation:
Bacon described a repeating cycle of observation, hypothesis, experimentation, and the need for independent verification. …
After the accession of Pope Clement IV in 1265, the Pope granted Bacon a special commission to write to him on scientific matters. In eighteen months he completed three large treatises, the Opus Majus, Opus Minus, and Opus Tertium which he sent to the Pope. William Whewell has called Opus Majus at once the Encyclopaedia and Organon of the 13th century.
- Part I (pp. 1–22) treats of the four causes of error: authority, custom, the opinion of the unskilled many, and the concealment of real ignorance by a pretense of knowledge.
- Part VI (pp. 445–477) treats of experimental science, domina omnium scientiarum [ruler of all sciences]. There are two methods of knowledge: the one by argument, the other by experience. Mere argument is never sufficient; it may decide a question, but gives no satisfaction or certainty to the mind, which can only be convinced by immediate inspection or intuition, which is what experience gives.
- Experimental science, which in the Opus Tertium (p. 46) is distinguished from the speculative sciences and the operative arts, is said to have three great prerogatives over all sciences:
- It verifies their conclusions by direct experiment;
- It discovers truths which they could never reach;
- It investigates the secrets of nature, and opens to us a knowledge of past and future.
Roger Bacon illustrated his method by an investigation into the nature and cause of the rainbow, as a specimen of inductive research.
Concur, I’m in the same general field, and Falk is a respected mainstream scholar.
Unfortunately Part 1 there suggests that there’s not been as much progress as we’d like…