On Apr 19, 2008, at 3:11 PM, Derek Allan wrote:
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..
You might recall, too, that I asked a simple question, in the form of
an if-then argument, which I will recast here for clarity:
IF you claim that "works from all these [ancient] cultures have
become 'art' for us, since about 1900."
THEN why do you claim that science "in the current acceptation of the
word" began in the 16th/17th century.
Let me rephrase the question to minimalize the fuzziness:
IF you accept old--really old, paleo-old--art as art,
THEN why do you not accept old science as science, i.e., without a
condescending qualification like "bits and pieces of knowledge [found]
their way into science."
*You* said art was not art until 1900, except of course Paleolithic
art and other old art. And you said scientific knowledge didn't begin
until the 16th/17th (or 17th and 18th, whichever you really have in
mind). I want to know why you exempt "art" from the historical time
limit, but you don't do the same for science?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Michael Brady
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
