TimONeill wrote:What "writing style"?
Disgusting. Made of hateful rant.
TimONeill wrote:It seems you didn't read my article very carefully at all.
That's what I said.
TimONeill wrote:Firstly, I detail several scholars in the sixth century, one probably Christian and the others definitely so, who who were not just "interested in Archimedes" but who were directly responsible for the transmission of his works to the present day. All modern editions of Archimedes depend on manuscript traditions that derive from the compilations of Isidore of Miletus. These in turn were used by Leo the Mathematician (c. 790-c. 869) whose school produced the three strands of manuscript tradition that derived from Isidore, one of which is represented by the Codex C text found in the Archimedes Palimpsest. That particular manuscript, in turn, was produced by another Christian scribe sometime in the tenth century. And not long after the priest in Jerusalem recycled it, William of Moerbeke was working in Constantinople copying and translating the other works of Archimedes, preserving several of them from loss in the process.
So, how many Greek
texts by Archimedes collected by Byzantine survived?
TimONeill wrote:To characterise this as somehow NOT meaning that these guys, working over several centuries maintaining these works over multiple copies, preserved this work and claiming that one guy recycling one copy of one of those works is somehow evidence of the neglect of these works is totally ridiculous.
If a claim seems ridiculous to you, you'd better check that it's not you
who invoked that straw man. At least if you are talking to an opponent that can answer
What we are actually talking about, is that thanks to that one guy who did his job poorly
, now after some restoration we have one non-translated (or quite close to non-translated) copy of some of Archimedes' works. Thanks to hundreds of other such guys, who did their job well, the rest is lost.
You need to be very... hmm... partisan to call that "preservation".
TimONeill wrote:Maybe you should actually bother reading the article next time.
That's unlikely, unless you completely rewrite it before that "next time".
"Corrective"? Do you mean that someone from the other side actually cares to read that rant?
I'm not sure who "the other side" might be.
Oh, who could that be... maybe the ones you were supposed to correct
TimONeill wrote:But I can assure you that the stats on my blog and my Twitter feed indicate that many thousands of people have read my "rant".
Oh, sure. And one of them is me.
But of course, it's quite possible that quite a lot of people share your hatred, so your texts don't look disgusting to them.
TimONeill wrote:Perhaps you need to ask yourself what is driving your clumsily inaccurate and curiously emotional reaction to it.
You are making judgements before knowing the facts. Right here, in this quote.
As to my reaction to the link:
1. The linked text is irrelevant. It does not try to address the topic about monks being or not being good librarians. It tries to address the topic about Christianity being or not being "anti-science" in practice.
2. The linked text is full of hate. Which means that the author's point of view is highly biased. While by itself that does not necessarily
mean that the arguments are inaccurate, the chances of the opposite are very slim, and very likely not worth investigating. The quality of the reference is the responsibility of whoever provides the link to back their claims, and if they did not manage to find anything better, then, well....ETA:
FriendOfFred wrote:What's not true is that this had anything to do with some conflict between science and "stupid fairy stories".
Indeed. It is not a conflict between science
and dogma (and no one, as far as I remember, claimed so in this thread). It is a conflict between information and agenda.
FriendOfFred wrote:In particular, since you can't be bothered to reopen the article, note that there was nothing special at the time about the copy that was erased.
As well as about all other
copies of this and similar works. The one thing that was somehow "special" was that Archimedes temporarily lost his popularity at this point of European history.
Now imagine that all librarians in the world are destroying all the "non-special" copies of the book that temporarily lost popularity. Would you call them good
As gathering and copying texts of others is not a sign of scientific
achievements (which are ultimately in creating your own works, not in hoarding the copies of works by others), as destroying the (becoming irrelevant) texts of others to give space to more actual texts is not a sign of being bad at science
(who needs to keep their personal copies of the books on phlogiston when oxygen has already been discovered?). However, a good scientist is not necessarily a good librarian - I'd actually expect a good scientist to be a bad librarian.
FriendOfFred wrote:It was just one out of many that were made and used (by Christians,
By monks. By people with their own agenda, different
from preservation of information not associated with what they personally or their cult is currently interested in.