I think few comments because of errors. 17:10 For example even taking the most extreme Feyerbendian view about the shortcomings of Galileo’s arguments; it is incompatible with science to imprison those espousing alternative theories, especially if they have the remarkable record on terristrial physics and made numerous discoveries showing Church wrong (Eg sunspots are on the sun). This is not how Boyle or any other scientific institution goes on. Also the prosecution of Galileo was substantially political. The Medici Pope pick lost and Galileo faced a Pope from a rival family.
It was much easier to do HPS when this guy hit his degree. We know much more now about Puritans and science and the debates about the dangers of “direct revelation” that concerned authorities and how they were negotiated. This is undergrad material now.
44:32 Sorry, Mr. European Studies, Aristotle did diseections, was obsessed with errors of common sense and illusions, and in the Meteorology covers precises mathematical regularities (cf. angle of moon halo). A different religion: The Pythagorean Cult got the West obsessed with mathematical regularities and law-like things. It took much more than this to make *The Invention of Science*. Is a director a scholarly or administrative position? Does. Harrison read the high quality work on these subjects published after 2,000 or know how to use the databases? 44:32
24:48 These nationalities did not exist not even as language communities during period of graph. At best the graph might say something about the location of the scientists birth or where they worked? But more useful for him and us would be a religious breakdown and for this section Calvinists and Switzerland would be relevant. Also who is a scientist? 24:48
You know...... Lukman Hakeem he was prominent figure in Islamic or quranic verses........ He knows about plants and their property and benefits for human being.... Botanist....
1:01:14 Just factually wrong-all three conclusions except “that there is a complex relationship between Chritianity [and Christian power] and the origins of Science” Poor Pepperdine student could sue for wrong answer of Needham questions. Chinese polymaths had very strong ideas of natural law: both Li and Dao. Not enough space to explain why science didn’t take off elsewhere but Boyle and the Royal Society internally self-consciously developing resources for internal legitimacy and a multigenerational program are I’d say the consensus view which is very well evidenced. The outstanding Needham questions are more like, Why didn’t China make a Royal Society. 10th century is establishment of University of Bologna, but what is 200 years to a historian who is really a Christian apologist. Also, not only were laws irrelevant to the keys for getting modern science going ,except to keep Church off back, it is hardly clear that the laws helped science rather than get in the way. Euclid’s Elements were for Newton the source for organizing the PM, and his “laws of motion” are not more or less special than other axioms. So laws not at issue. The confidence for comprehensibility of Nature has other origins in anatomy mainly, and geographical discovery. And the most religious Christian of the bunch Newton was a skeptic about understanding. Essence talk is too complicated to address and would be over Harrison’s head.
29:36 He puts Descartes before the horse. Except for Newton, a theological alchemist, the history on laws is unambiguously one of negotiation, accommodation and compromise. Laws, which were places God acted, were introduced in unimportant places so philosophers would not be killed by religious authorities. Then later they move from “pushes” to counter-factual supporting principles what are useful for the organization of science and simplified. and reduced causes and powers of things. It is far from clear that laws helped progress. Now post-Cartwright most in HPS dispensed with laws and so does every science except vestigially. Things people would have called laws are “principles” or “effects” or most commonly attributed and powers (say of Fermions). This guy is too contaminated by old Anglo ideas following Newton, who is exceptional, and not even a good example of a modern scientist of his time; but a nearly insane zealot who made some mathematical breakthroughs in his youth and did not keep up with science, and abused his positions at the RS, to prosecute Leibniz and boiled people alive and stole from the mint.
1:01:14 Warning⚠️ Real HPS scholars don’t waste time and get Rick Rolled by this talk. There is nothing new, much inaccurate, much dishonest scholarship with respect to Clarke-Leibniz and Bacon, and surprisingly shoddy basic European history. And Harrison appears to just be a theologian with a side-gig in HPS, but have not checked.
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
Good clear argument, excellent and clear English.
Why people not commenting on such good and knowledgeable topics of history
I think few comments
because of errors.
17:10 For example
even taking the most extreme Feyerbendian view about the shortcomings of Galileo’s arguments; it is incompatible with science to imprison those espousing alternative theories, especially if they have the remarkable record on terristrial physics and made numerous discoveries showing Church wrong (Eg sunspots
are on the sun). This is not how Boyle or any other scientific institution goes on.
Also the prosecution of Galileo was substantially political. The Medici Pope
pick lost and Galileo faced a Pope from a rival family.
It was much easier to do HPS when this guy hit his degree. We know much more now about Puritans and science and the debates about the dangers of “direct revelation” that concerned authorities
and how they were
negotiated. This is undergrad material now.
This video 10 years ago but having only one comment why?
41:51 Everytime something in my world stops, it stops because of forces.
44:32 Sorry, Mr. European Studies, Aristotle did diseections, was obsessed with errors of common sense and illusions, and in the Meteorology covers precises mathematical regularities (cf. angle of moon halo).
A different religion: The Pythagorean Cult got the West obsessed with mathematical regularities and law-like things. It took much more than this to make *The Invention of Science*.
Is a director a scholarly or administrative position? Does. Harrison read the high quality work on these subjects published after 2,000 or know how to use the databases? 44:32
24:48 These nationalities did not exist not even as language communities during period of graph. At best the graph might say something about the location of the scientists birth or where they worked? But more useful for him and us would be a religious breakdown and for this section Calvinists and Switzerland would be relevant. Also who is a scientist? 24:48
You know...... Lukman Hakeem he was prominent figure in Islamic or quranic verses........ He knows about plants and their property and benefits for human being.... Botanist....
1:01:14 Just factually wrong-all three conclusions except “that there is a complex relationship between Chritianity [and Christian power] and the origins of Science”
Poor Pepperdine student could sue for wrong answer of Needham questions.
Chinese polymaths had very strong ideas of natural law: both Li and Dao. Not enough space to explain why science didn’t take off elsewhere but Boyle and the Royal Society internally self-consciously developing resources for internal legitimacy and a multigenerational program are I’d say the consensus view which is very well evidenced. The outstanding Needham questions are more like, Why didn’t China make a Royal Society.
10th century is establishment of University of Bologna, but what is 200 years to a historian who is really a Christian apologist.
Also, not only were laws irrelevant to the keys for getting modern science going ,except to keep Church off back, it is hardly clear that the laws helped science rather than get in the way. Euclid’s Elements were for Newton the source for organizing the PM, and his “laws of motion” are not more or less special than other axioms. So laws not at issue. The confidence for comprehensibility of Nature has other origins in anatomy mainly, and geographical discovery. And the most religious Christian of the bunch Newton was a skeptic about understanding. Essence talk is too complicated to address and would be over Harrison’s head.
29:36 He puts Descartes before the horse. Except for Newton, a theological alchemist, the history on laws is unambiguously one of negotiation, accommodation and compromise. Laws, which were places God acted, were introduced in unimportant places so philosophers would not be killed by religious authorities. Then later they move from “pushes” to counter-factual supporting principles what are useful for the organization of science and simplified. and reduced causes and powers of things. It is far from clear that laws helped progress. Now post-Cartwright most in HPS dispensed with laws and so does every science except vestigially. Things people would have called laws are “principles” or “effects” or most commonly attributed and powers (say of Fermions).
This guy is too contaminated by old Anglo ideas following Newton, who is exceptional, and not even a good example of a modern scientist of his time; but a nearly insane zealot who made some mathematical breakthroughs in his youth and did not keep up with science, and abused his positions at the RS, to prosecute Leibniz and boiled people alive and stole from the mint.
1:01:14 Warning⚠️ Real HPS scholars don’t waste time and get Rick Rolled by this talk. There is nothing new, much inaccurate, much dishonest scholarship with respect to Clarke-Leibniz and Bacon, and surprisingly shoddy basic European history.
And Harrison appears to just be a theologian with a side-gig in HPS, but have not checked.
Modern science not originated in or 16th century...... You