On Apr 19, 2008, at 11:23 AM, Derek Allan wrote:
But works from all these cultures have become 'art' for us - since
about
1900. So when I say that 'art' was invented at least as early as the
Paleolithic, that is what I mean. Large numbers of works from all
those
cultures are among those which today we regularly call art.
If Paleolithic images are "'art' for us" since c. 1900, why isn't
ancient knowledge of the natural world--so-called natural philosophy,
and much of it empirical--also "science for us"?
Why do you set the 16th-17th century as the terminus post quem for the
acceptation [sic] of term "science"? After all, a large number of
knowledges from all those cultures are among that which we regularly
call science.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
