RE: '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."'
Because it wasn't science - in the current acceptation of the word. For example do you think alchemy was science? Science involves a particular way of looking at the world and a particular methodology. These did not arise till the 17th/18th century - with early precursors in 16th. Art as we understand the term began in the Paleolithic. At a modest estimate, some 40,000 years earlier. Could be much more. DA On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 6:21 AM, Michael Brady <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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] > > -- Derek Allan
