How would science be different if the church hadn't condemned Aristotle's work in the middle ages?

Question

How would science be different if the church hadn't condemned Aristotle's work in the middle ages?

Answer 1

Probably very different.  The church was concerned about political and economic control, and was reacting to Aristotle's philosophy and methodology of free inquiry.  

Historically, what we label "science" was called natural philosopy.  Ethics, aesthetics, and symmetry and harmony were part and parcel of philosophy - including natural philosophy.  If you read any of the older texts on science or medicine, you'll find that these often are much stronger themes than logic.

Part of what Aristotle was advocating was the concept of replacing tradition with logic and personal value.  That what was what the church was afraid of - that individual people could determine truth and value, indpendently of the church.  The church repressed science because it opened the door to independent, rather than conformist thinking.  

Galilieo, Copernicus, Michelangelo, and many others were persecuted and censored, not because of what they did or knew, but because what what they said  undermined the church's position as the penultimate source of all truth.

The modern scientific method and style is very much a defensive response against the early church's censorship - an effort to reduce everything to cold hard logic, with no room for philosophical discussion.  It ackowledges only those things which can be consensually observed and quantified.  If something can't be reduced to a reproducible number, then for all  intents and purposes, it doesn't exist.

While logic is a powerful tool, it is not the only tool or way of understanding.  There are many real things that can't be accurately observed or measured.  Modern quantum and particle physics is specifically about those kinds of things.

Modern sicence's dismissing all other tools and other ways of understanding other than logic as inferior, has in it's own way limited the growth and expansion of knowledge at least as much as the church did.  I think a large area of growth for science lies in its re-acceptance of it's former role as natural philosopy, rather than an extended exercise in pure logic.

Answer 2

the basics facts of science are relatively concrete.  so called discoveries are already out there waiting to be "found."  We might be further ahead than we are but not necessarily.  Alot of science happens by accident, so its hard to say what the best conditions are.  I wonder where society would be if it weren't for the interference of domineering religious leaders.

Answer 3

It's likely that the condemnation of Aristotle's work had a chilling effecr upon people who might otherwise have pursued some kind of scientific inquiry.

Think of it this way: If the church was strict enough to try and erase the work of thje long-dead Aristotle, what were they going to do to someon4 who was still alive?

Answer 4

Not much different.  By the middle ages science had already gotten enough steam up (so to speak) that the REASON the church had to condemn an ancient Greek, well, the church was playing defense.  It was trying to stop the tide.