I used it to refer to the period in history after the Ionian tradition of experimentation essentially died out in favor of Aristotle’s philosophy of reason. Following this in Europe there was a roughly 1500 year period when scientific experimentation was not in vogue. This was not reversed until after Roger Bacon revived the tradition. Experimentation did survive in Persia, and for 1-2 hundred years prior to Bacon there was increasing Persian scientific influence in Europe, which is probably not a coincidence.

In my opinion, this period was a scientific dark ages. But given how much baggage that term has, I will be more cautious about using it in the future. I don’t know if there is a more generally accepted term for this period.

Anyway, it’s wrong to call it a 1500 year period, unless you include all of the “Middle Age” period, which is not a scientific definition (although used by the public at large).

A good set of definitions can be found here:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dark%20ages

On this topic though, it’s quite true that we should be aware that all arguments from authority should be questioned. If ever I hear one, I find out what Dr Novella thinks about it before I trust it.

It’s easy

*If the above didn’t appear in a little box, feel free to mock me – it works on rdnet, so I’m keeping my fingers crossed that it’ll work here too.

-Albert Einstein

I thought this quote was fitting considering the previous post on mysticism.

You cannot have experimentation without some thought process, but you can have reason and observation without experimentation – and that is what Aristotle advocated. Experimentation was akin to manual labor – for workers, not scholars.

I agree that there is greater depth and complexity to everything I am saying. The discussion has expanded to a huge area. But, generally speaking, there is a distinction to be made between scientific experimentation and the trial and error of technological development. I am not saying there is NO overlap, just that they are not one and the same.

I don’t want to get into a semantic argument. Your statements about authority are correct, and I have written pretty much the same in the past. I am talking about “marked by adherence to authority” meaning that authority had a dominant role. I did not mean to imply that now we put no value on authority – but rather have it in its proper place – it should be taken into account, but is trumped by evidence. Authority plays a much smaller role in modern science than it did in medieval thought.

But for whatever relevance may remain, here it goes regardless:

blockquote>Aristotle used reason and observation rather than experimentation to figure out nature

Not quite correct. It’s not an either/or proposition. Experimentation would not have been possible without reason and observation.

blockquote>there were steady technological advancements during this time, as well as descriptive work. That must be distinguished from scientific inquiry, however.

Not quite correct. Technological advancements are always the result of experimentation, and should be distinguished from scientific theory only in so far as the part should be distinguished from the whole. Whatever the insight offered by James Burke, the direct connections are clear.

blockquote>The point is, that the “dark ages” were marked by adherence to authority, and they ended when that philosophy was replaced by more modern scientific notions of experimentation and willingness to challenge authority.

Not quite correct. That philosophy has not been “replaced” as much as having been both supplemented and augmented. Use of authority to add credibility to a proposition is entirely proper, and the impropriety of such would as much involve the failure to do so as it would the citation of a bogus authority. Your post here about Einstein is precisely about the value of citing his name for whatever credibility it might add to a particular proposition. And note how often we use Darwinism as a substitute for evolutionary theory, as a clear reference to his being the authoritative version.
And there have always been challenges to authority. Science has both made such challenges more effective, but that effectiveness has in part been augmented by its use in distinguishing the more valid authority from the bogus.

The 1500 years is roughly that between Aristotle and Roger Bacon.

And don’t get caught up in terminology (dark ages is just a short hand) – keep in mind what I am specifically saying:

During the time there was a lack of philosophical support for experimentation as a method of inquiry. Aristotle favored reason over experiment. Roger Bacon is largely credited with bringing back scientific experimentation (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/bacon2.html)

Also during this time, actually for 1-2 hundred years prior, there was a reintroduction of scientific thinking from the muslim world into Europe.

The “authority” of Aristotle is a more complex question. It does not overlap with this period exactly. While Aristotle’s writings were known to scholars throughout this time, it was late in the Medieval period that interest in his writings increased. They were initially resisted by the church, but later the church formally adopted many of Aristotle’s ideas (while still rejecting others) and made it heresy to reject those ideas they endorsed.

I think your reaction is largely to the use of the term “dark ages” which is very complicated, because you actually have to separate out the different kinds of knowledge and scholarly activity. Renaissance scholars did grossly exaggerate the backwardness of medieval scholars – and this is the source of much of the mythology about the “dark ages.” There was continuity of knowledge from the “classical” world, and continued scholarship throughout this time. In fact, in the humanities medieval scholars were more rigorous than later renaissance scholars.

But I was specifically referring to experiment and authority. Regarding experimentation I think the case is pretty clear that it was generally lacking during this time and was revived by Bacon and the infusion of muslim science at that time.

Regarding “authority” in general – there was a general acceptance of revealed knowledge and authority in medieval scholarship. However, they kept philosophy and the other humanities separate from theology. While they could not argue that any Christian dogma was wrong, they could argue that “reason leads us to X, which we know must be wrong because X is not the Christian dogma.”

Also – I never said there was no opposition to this. Of course there was – that’s how things ultimately changed. But the dominant philosophy of the time was reason and authority – not experimentation.

Here is an overview: http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/Ockham/x5201.html

Cut me some slack on my sources, your essentially asking me to do more work than my original blog entry. Also – I do refer you to James Burke who wrote Connections and The Day the Universe Changed – which goes over much of this also.