Trivia?

This is another entry that has been inspired by my reading of James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Washington DC: Henry Regnery, 2011).

Hannam is talking about the three introductory academic subjects that a student at the medieval University of Oxford would have studied: grammar, dialectic, and rhetoric.  Together, because of their number, they were known as the trivium.  “This is the origin,” Hannam points out, “of the English word ‘trivial.’  It is an unfortunate piece of etymology, because all three subjects were vitally important.”

“Grammar” was basically about developing a very fine and precise style of written Latin, which was essential because Latin was the language of scholarly writing and the international language of European academia, not only in Oxford but in Paris and beyond.  It was the only language that the university recognized, and students could even be fined for speaking in English, even in private conversations.

“Rhetoric” was much broader than good oratory, speaking well in public.  It was also, among other things, about learning how to construct arguments.

But here’s the one that interests me most:

Dialectic means “logic” in everyday parlance, and it is one of the facets of medieval intellectual life that seems most alien to us today.  Far from being irrational, thinkers of the Middle Ages were obsessed by logic to an extent that seems completely unreasonable to their modern critics.  Students had logical constructions called syllogisms hammered into them until they could repeat them by heart.  As a learning aid there were plenty of mnemonics to help students along, but ultimately logic required a great deal of rote learning.  (151)

A common trope among some critics of religious belief is the claim that the medieval “Age of Faith” in Europe was a time of rampant irrationality.  Well, okay.  I understand their point, and what they’re trying to say, and it’s not entirely wrong.  But it’s certainly not entirely correct, either, and, taken at face value, it’s a gross oversimplification of the historical truth.

***

A couple of items from the cutting edge of modern science:

“Did a rogue star change the makeup of our solar system?”

And this one is surprisingly interesting.  Be warned, though, that it contains an f-bomb:

“Geology’s Timekeepers Are Feuding: “It’s a bit like Monty Python.””

Posted from Victoria, British Columbia