> Hm, I think we have to be a bit careful about the legacy of the classical world being "interrupted". This may be true in part (wasn't it that central heating was lost to Britain even though it had been known in Roman times?), but contrary to popular belief, the middle ages were in many respects also a continuation of the classical world.
I agree with you. We have to be careful, and the middle ages were in many respects a natural development out of the classical world.
But they were a natural development that saw a radical upheaval in the culture. The organization that the Romans put in place largely fell apart, forgotten. Industrial production crashed. There was not a continuous transmission of tradition -- a large part of the Renaissance really was reading ancient texts to discover what they said. They had vanished from the living tradition.
> (they thought it was at the center of the universe, but as far as I know, nobody had successfully proven otherwise in antiquity either)
That's not something that -- to the best of our knowledge today -- it's possible to prove or disprove. (Similarly, if you conceive of "the earth" as the spherical surface rather than the solid ball, you'll be perfectly correct if you say that Rome is at the center. You'll also be correct if you say any other point is the center.)
What evidence we do have, interestingly enough, points towards the earth really being at the center of the universe. Redshift in every direction! We reject that conclusion for philosophical reasons, not because it's been disproved.
I agree with you. We have to be careful, and the middle ages were in many respects a natural development out of the classical world.
But they were a natural development that saw a radical upheaval in the culture. The organization that the Romans put in place largely fell apart, forgotten. Industrial production crashed. There was not a continuous transmission of tradition -- a large part of the Renaissance really was reading ancient texts to discover what they said. They had vanished from the living tradition.
> (they thought it was at the center of the universe, but as far as I know, nobody had successfully proven otherwise in antiquity either)
That's not something that -- to the best of our knowledge today -- it's possible to prove or disprove. (Similarly, if you conceive of "the earth" as the spherical surface rather than the solid ball, you'll be perfectly correct if you say that Rome is at the center. You'll also be correct if you say any other point is the center.)
What evidence we do have, interestingly enough, points towards the earth really being at the center of the universe. Redshift in every direction! We reject that conclusion for philosophical reasons, not because it's been disproved.