The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages: Their Religious, Institutional and Intellectual Contexts (Cambridge Studies in the History of Science) 1st Edition

In this study, Grant clearly exposed the unique conditions that led to the development, (only) in the western world, of modern science during the 17th century, namely, the institutionalization of knowledge. This book fills a gap in our understanding that was badly missing, and humanize the history of the development of modern science, making it fully plausible. It also helps in dispersing the dark ages myth which the midlle ages was supposed to be. One learns also a surprising fact that emphasizes the importance of the western theologians in developing modern science. His comparison with what happened in Islam is fundamental on this point: both theologians in Islam and Europe arrived to the same conclusion, which is that one cannot justify religion dogma based on natural philosophy, which is based on reason. But contrary to Islam, this conclusion was fought differently in the west, because of the universities constitution that separates the state from the church. This comment not only seems to illuminate the past, but also to constitute a strong warning for our present and future.

This book tells about science before the enlightenment of (about) 1600. Most of us know, but only in general terms, about the Greek and then Arab contribution to science. Very few of us know what happened in the period from about 1200 to 1600 and it was very significant. It is described in this book in a most readable manner. I recommend the book, especially to modern-day scientists just a bit interested in the history of their profession. It is a good read.

Excellent overview of scientific thought & progress in th Middle Ages.

The thing impressed me most about this book, aside from the from the information itself, was the unbiased method of transmitting the information. After reading this book, I was completely unable to discern what Grant's religious convictions (or lack thereof) are. I find that outstanding because he discussed a deeply religious time period, and all of the figures were religious, yet he neither praises nor insults his subjects as too many authors do. This book is not a polemic at all. Strictly facts with a thoroughly convincing narrative that is very enlightening. The book is well-written and makes for a good read. Having just finished the book this evening, I am in a terrific mood; money well-spent and my understanding of the matter deepened. I will say this very clearly: I SHALL buy and read every Grant book I can get my hands on. I don't know if there can be a better recommendation. This one book makes me want to read his other books.This book is appropriate for an undergraduate History of Science class or for an educated lay person.

It's the middles ages without preconception

In The Foundations of Modern Science in the Middle Ages, Edward Grant argues that the Scientific Revolution ignited in Western Europe during the 17th century had historical roots in the late Middle Ages. Which seems like a truism, if you pay attention to how the world works; great ideas rarely, if ever, arise spontaneously, without precedent.But, as Grant observes, when Galileo wrote his Dialogue on the Two Chief World Systems to explain how his new cosmology differed from the older view, his literary approach--using the character of Simplicio to caricature Aristotelianism (which Grant carefully distinguishes from Aristotle himself)--left a lasting impression on Western views of everything that happened during the thousand years before the 16th century. So there is room for revision in our understanding of how the process played out.Since the late 19th century, medievalists have done much to rehabilitate that vast millennium. For example, they have conceptualized the sensibly-named "Early Middle Ages," "High Middle Ages," and "Late Middle Ages." (Precise delineations of historical periods, like political geography, are debatable, of course, but you would remain within the mainstream if you imagined the Early Middle Ages as comprising the 4th through the 10th centuries, the High Middle Ages as the 11th through the 14th, and the late middle ages as the 15th and 16th.) Plenty happened in Western Europe during those periods, but critical to Grant's analysis are three developments during the High and Late Middle ages (starting in the late 13th century): the emergence of universities as independent corporate bodies; the recovery of Aristotle and his Arabic commentators, in Latin translations from the Arabic; and the rise of theologian who were also natural philosophers.Here is a (probably too simplified) summary of Grant's thesis. The universities institutionalized the promotion and protection of learning (or at least intellectual gymnastics) for its own sake. Aristotle and his Arabic commentators gave the faculties of those universities much to chew on. And the Christian theologians who embraced Aristotelian natural philosophy paved the way (as I read Grant) for just enough support from the Church that new ideas were allowed to simmer until finally boiling over into the Scientific Revolution, but not so much that the Church followed boldly when scientific cosmology began to suggest a diminished role for God in the workings of the world.Grant generally avoids that last point, about how the Church responded to the Scientific Revolution, so my summary may run a little wild there. The book is not an argument for why we have a conflict between science and religion; it is an argument that the Scientific Revolution had historical precedents in the deeply religious Middle Ages. But Grant is also not an apologist. He admits that something different happened in the 17th century--the Scientific Revolution was unique to Western Europe, despite potential precedents in other times and places around the world. But he is careful to note that we can no more blame the church for obstructing the development of science in the late Middle Ages than we can say that the "extraordinary process" by which modern science arose "was fast or slow." (Page 171.) On whether the Scientific Revolution marks a "continuous or discontinuous" movement in history, Grant provides a miniature bibliographic essay that reaches no conclusion. (Pages 224-225.)Given the strong opposition expressed by many religious people against much of the scientific enterprise, it would be nonsensical to suggest (as some have) that the conflict between science and religion is illusory. Those arguments are essentially just efforts at creative redefinition (usually to insist that "true" religion is not inconsistent with science, which raises interesting questions about the many people, past and present, who have identified themselves as religious, or affiliated with religious institutions, and drawn upon the notions and rhetoric of those institutions in their opposition to various scientific ideas and practices). And that is not to say that creative redefinition, in the form of new interpretations or revisionist history, is never an admirable or useful pursuit. Probably recognizing this minefield as territory whose conquest is not required by his thesis, Grant avoids it well. If you are looking for a better understanding of the conflict between science and religion, you should include this book in your researches; but you will be disappointed if you hope for a robust explanation of that particular phenomenon.Foundations of Modern Science begins in earnest in the 13th century, which leaves a stretch of several hundred years after the fall of the Western Roman Empire when other cultures did produce greater intellectual achievements than the people of Western Europe, notably Islam. The story of modern science as the gift of rediscovered Greece is incomplete. In the final pages of the book, Grant observes that "the modern science that emerged in the seventeenth century in Western Europe was the legacy of a scientific tradition that began in Ancient Greek and Hellenistic civilization, was further nurtured and advanced in the far-flung civilization of Islam, and was brought to fruition in the civilization of Western Europe, beginning in the late twelfth century." (Pages 205-206.) He continues, pointedly: "Latin scholars in the twelfth century recognized that all civilizations were not equal. They were painfully aware that with respect to science and natural philosophy their civilization was manifestly inferior to that of Islam." (Page 206.) So they learned. And they institutionalized science in a way that Islam never did, or perhaps ever could. Decide for yourself, I suppose, how moral value should be apportioned throughout the process.Grant argues compellingly not just that something unique happened in Western Europe, but that spectacular developments in the 17th century were dependent on what happened during the previous 400 years. And the pivotal factors were universities, the recovery of Aristotle, and the work of theologians who were also natural philosophers. One might say that the West, awakened from its intellectual doldrums in the late 13th century, took up Aristotle, spent the next four centuries chewing him up, only to spit him out, and, in the process, find a vastly superior method for developing knowledge of the world.Foundations of Modern Science, though not especially lengthy, is not a quick read. Proceed slowly and carefully in the first seven chapters, which are dense, and organized to guide you through a momentous shift in how the people of Western Europe conceived their world. If the narrative seems to bog down in details about Aristotelian cosmology during the middle chapters, resist the temptation to skip ahead. The synthesis in the final chapter comes to great effect if you have digested the earlier chapters thoroughly.

Great!

I read this and wrote a paper about it for a Humanities course. A good book to compare it to is Rodney Starks' _For the Glory of God_, which takes Grant's ideas about science a bit too far.Grant provides an all encompassing theory on how science emerged. I don't think the topic could be explained any better without some new archeological find or manipulation of the facts.The most interesting parts in my opinion involve the comparision of Western European culture to that of China, Byzantium, and the Islamic Middle East. Why didn't they develop science first? Find out why inside.For laymen and people without a doctorate in history who want to read this for enjoyment (or for curricular activities), reading the first two and the last chapters will give you a good approximation of Grant's thesis. Only do this if you have a good general knowledge of history from 600 BC to 1700 AD.