Re: ' 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.'
If you recall I said science 'in the current acceptation of the word'. In those terms science begins around 16th/17th century. This does not mean that bits and pieces of previous knowledge did not find their way into science. But that is when the scientific outlook began to emerge This is what 17th and 18th century philosophy is largely about.. DA On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 1:55 AM, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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]
