"The Wogster" wrote in message
news
Edward Dolan wrote:
"The Wogster" wrote in message
...

Edward Dolan wrote:

[...]

The Ancients were human beings of course, but sufficiently different
from us in their thinking that we need not concern ourselves with them.
Even the Greeks and the Romans were not much better.The only kind of
civilization I care about began with the West at about the time of the
Renaissance in Italy.

However if it had not been for the rise and fall of the Italian (Roman)
Empire, then the Italian Renaissance, might have never happened.


There was nothing Italian about Ancient Rome. However, there was
everything Italian about Renaissance Italy. I do not like to see Rome
given too much credit for the rise of Europe.
[...]

You sure about that, Rome is in Italy after all, Roman government might
have fallen, but there are modern Italians in Rome, who have Roman
roots.... However Romans after the fall had to reinvent themselves and
Italy is the result.

No, Italy was invaded by various tribes after the fall of the Empire and
there was nothing Roman about them at all.

Did you know that Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth in their mouth
than men. It apparently never occurred to him to look inside a woman's
mouth and count the teeth. What do you make of that? So much for logic!

That's not logic, perhaps the women he did look at, had lost a few teeth
by that time, so he figured they had less, perhaps with a larger sample
size, the possible truth of his idea would have disappeared.....

Yes, you are thinking like a man of the West, but Aristotle was thinking
like a Greek. Huge difference!

Make that ancient Greek, modern Greeks are quite different, I know a few
of them.....

Yes, modern Greeks and Romans are as Western as you and I are. When I
reference Roman and Greek in a historical discussion like this, I am of
course referring to the ancient civilizations.

The High Middle Ages were quite innovative in very many technical ways,
but still they lacked scientific thinking. Technology is not science and
is always severely limited in what it can know.

Science and Technology are close relatives. Science is the knowledge,
technology is the implementation of that knowledge. No technology now in
existance, would exist without some scientific discovery.

Very sophisticated technology can exist without any foundation in science
whatsoever. The High Middle Ages proved that.


Either your definition of technology or your definition of science is
flawed...

Yes, I am assuming a universe of understanding which you do not have. We
would have to began with a History of Western Civilization 101 to be
followed by a History of Science 101. It is way too much work at our ages.
You either get it in your youth or you miss out on it forever.

Here is an example, the science: If you take methane gas, and apply heat
you get a chemical reaction (fire). This lead to the technology behind
the natural gas furnace. One that I am happy about this morning, in that
the temperature outside is -12C, so I don't have to go out and chop wood
this morning.


The rise of science only occurred in the West. It is why Western
Civilization is now dominant in the world. Why it occurred in the West
and nowhere else is very mysterious, but I attribute it to the Protestant
Reformation in Western Europe. Science and technology are two different
things. They may or may not be related. All civilizations have
technology, but only the West developed science. Huge difference!

Gee, now your thinking like a modern American, where only science that is
discoved, and technology developed in the USA count.

By the West, I mean Western Civilization or Christendom. If you had had a
college liberal arts education it would not be necessary for me to recover
these terms for you.

By the way science was not discovered, it was invented.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota