Mondino de Luzzi's Anathomia corporis humani, written in 1316 and based on dissection of cadavers.
edit: The other links I gave indicate that dissection was practiced earlier. The reasons for it not being more widely practiced were not primarily religious. As the articles make clear, the church never banned dissection.
You are right of course that the early 14th century is technically the very beginning of the Renaissance by most definitions, but the standard myths have it that dissection was still banned by the church much later than that. The misinterpreted papal edict that supposedly banned dissection was issued in 1299, so if you're going to be pedantic about time periods, you'd have to say that it's the Renaissance that suffered from a ban on dissection and not the medieval period!
>And what were the reasons for the poor state of medicine between Galen and Renaissance when not religious?
Scientific progress ebbs and flows for all kinds of reasons. I should think the invention of the printing press played more of a role than religion. Note also that dissection was banned in many non-Christian societies:
>there's an immense period of time where we don't have any good example of functioning scientific approach to the medicine, and the fundamentalist understanding of Bible was the very significant cause for that.
You've provided no evidence in support of this claim. It seems to be something that you're just going to keep insisting on, so I'm not sure how to respond. The "fundamentalist" understanding of the Bible did not exist in the medieval period, when only highly educed people read the Bible. It has its origins in the 19th century as a consequence of mass literacy and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular hundreds of years previously.
>Your "printing press" excuse doesn't correlate with all the progress in antique and also at the start of the Renaissance (and before the printing press), the very example you gave, but my "religion" not only correlates with the "dark medicine ages" but also with many source texts that we can read.
I don't understand what you mean by "religion" here. Religion existed in Ancient Greece and it existed during and after the Renaissance. You'd need to show specific evidence that specific religious institutions in medieval Europe played a significant role in impeding the progress of medicine, in a way that they did not before or since.
> How can I prove that it's religion that suppressed the science? Simply because the written (and other) material available to history shows people spending immense energy to the religious questions, but not to the science.
I don't see how that proves anything. At most, if it is true, it proves that people were overall more interested in religion than science. That obviously doesn't show that religion was suppressing science. People are nowadays much more interested in reality TV and Facebook than they are in science, but we wouldn't take that to be evidence of "suppression".
>You can disprove my claim of "poor medicine" for many centuries influenced by the Christian dogma if you can quote some text or drawings made between cca 300-something AD and 1200-something AD of any author actually correcting Galen who died 216 AD and who made very obvious errors in his own writings
The second article I linked to already did that:
[...] the year 1200, when a famine broke out in Egypt. While thousands of people died, it was also an opportunity for ‘Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi (d.1213) and other physicians to find out the answer to an anatomy problem. According to the writings of Galen the lower jaw bone was made up of two bones. Al-Baghdadi and the other medical experts disagreed, and with all these corpses around they thought of making a study of them. They arranged to see over two thousand skulls to observe their jaws before making their determination – all of them had a lower jaw made up of one bone, not two – and they then had a second group of physicians come in to verify their findings.
Ah yes, the parrot wasn't dead because after he was lying on the floor for almost a thousand years, once he had been prepared to be cleaned away we can view it as it was his own voluntary movement. And he was just resting. Good. I've understood the nature of your arguments, I have no more questions and don't expect anything more in this discussion.
edit: The other links I gave indicate that dissection was practiced earlier. The reasons for it not being more widely practiced were not primarily religious. As the articles make clear, the church never banned dissection.
You are right of course that the early 14th century is technically the very beginning of the Renaissance by most definitions, but the standard myths have it that dissection was still banned by the church much later than that. The misinterpreted papal edict that supposedly banned dissection was issued in 1299, so if you're going to be pedantic about time periods, you'd have to say that it's the Renaissance that suffered from a ban on dissection and not the medieval period!
>And what were the reasons for the poor state of medicine between Galen and Renaissance when not religious?
Scientific progress ebbs and flows for all kinds of reasons. I should think the invention of the printing press played more of a role than religion. Note also that dissection was banned in many non-Christian societies:
http://www.livescience.com/27624-mummy-head-middle-ages-anat...
>there's an immense period of time where we don't have any good example of functioning scientific approach to the medicine, and the fundamentalist understanding of Bible was the very significant cause for that.
You've provided no evidence in support of this claim. It seems to be something that you're just going to keep insisting on, so I'm not sure how to respond. The "fundamentalist" understanding of the Bible did not exist in the medieval period, when only highly educed people read the Bible. It has its origins in the 19th century as a consequence of mass literacy and the translation of the Bible into the vernacular hundreds of years previously.
>Your "printing press" excuse doesn't correlate with all the progress in antique and also at the start of the Renaissance (and before the printing press), the very example you gave, but my "religion" not only correlates with the "dark medicine ages" but also with many source texts that we can read.
I don't understand what you mean by "religion" here. Religion existed in Ancient Greece and it existed during and after the Renaissance. You'd need to show specific evidence that specific religious institutions in medieval Europe played a significant role in impeding the progress of medicine, in a way that they did not before or since.
> How can I prove that it's religion that suppressed the science? Simply because the written (and other) material available to history shows people spending immense energy to the religious questions, but not to the science.
I don't see how that proves anything. At most, if it is true, it proves that people were overall more interested in religion than science. That obviously doesn't show that religion was suppressing science. People are nowadays much more interested in reality TV and Facebook than they are in science, but we wouldn't take that to be evidence of "suppression".
>You can disprove my claim of "poor medicine" for many centuries influenced by the Christian dogma if you can quote some text or drawings made between cca 300-something AD and 1200-something AD of any author actually correcting Galen who died 216 AD and who made very obvious errors in his own writings
The second article I linked to already did that:
[...] the year 1200, when a famine broke out in Egypt. While thousands of people died, it was also an opportunity for ‘Abd al-Latif al-Baghdadi (d.1213) and other physicians to find out the answer to an anatomy problem. According to the writings of Galen the lower jaw bone was made up of two bones. Al-Baghdadi and the other medical experts disagreed, and with all these corpses around they thought of making a study of them. They arranged to see over two thousand skulls to observe their jaws before making their determination – all of them had a lower jaw made up of one bone, not two – and they then had a second group of physicians come in to verify their findings.
See also this:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39136101/02e7...