How did philosophers in the Middle Ages study nature?

Answer 1

Most of the natural philosophy of the Middle Ages was empirical. Some of it was not at all empirical, to the point of being anti-empirical, and rigidly focused on the writings of ancient Greeks, particularly Aristotle. This aberrant approach has been the focus of historical writing, probably because it is more interesting than reporting empirical study. It provides teachers and writers with a more interesting story.

In the Early Middle Ages, philosophical discourse was not particularly concerned with natural study, except as a matter of establishing technique. This approach continued throughout the Middle Ages in some places, and particularly in Islamic lands, the Byzantine Empire, and Jewish culture. The philosophers of these groups of people reported what they found, and that included both observations and practical use of knowledge. The natural philosophers of the Late Middle Ages were also empirically inclined, and the Scientific Method grew out of the work of these people.

When the universities began opening in the 11th century, however, academics of Western Europe were just in the process of rediscovering Aristotle and others of the the Greek philosophers. As people who studied books, and not animals, plants, or tools, they proceeded to apply Aristotle's teachings so rigidly that they would not use an empirical approach at all. A classic story is that if they wanted to know how many teeth a horse had, they would look in a book written by Aristotle, instead of a horse's mouth. In effect they were implying that Aristotle was infallible.

Of course, the Catholic Church of the time did not like the idea that any pagan Greek could be infallible, and so there were several actions taken during the 13th century to curb such an approach to natural philosophy. Today, these actions are called the Condemnations of 1210-1277. They made it clear that some of the teachings of the universities of the time were heretical, and freed philosophy and science to be empirical in the process.

Later, university professors and other academics tried on several occasions to return to rigid instruction based on literal materials, but never with complete success.

Historians of the Renaissance, in a desire to make their time an equal of the glories of ancient Rome, focused very narrowly on the failures of the Middle Ages, and so the idea that the entire period was one of aberrant education prevailed. This idea continues to prevail today among people who regard the Renaissance as a period of rebirth after centuries of ignorance. It is largely kept alive by the notion that the Middle Ages are unworthy of study, and so it feeds itself.

The thing to bear in mind about the anti-empirical approach to philosophy of the Middle Ages, is that it was only condoned during a period of about 1090 to 1210. And during that time, it only prevailed in about half a dozen universities of western Europe.

Natural study in the Middle Ages has been left without much historical coverage, but it is not because it did not happen. We do not have names and dates for many of the discoveries and inventions that happened during the time, and so the histories do not have convenient stories to tell. There are exceptions, such as Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon. But somehow, they often get missed or classified as men more typical of another time. And if we add Jewish and Muslim philosophers, the list gets too long for a short answer.

There are links below to articles on the Condemnations of 1210-1277 and the Scientific Method

Answer 2

The short answer is that scientists and most philosophers studied nature empirically (by observation) most of the time, and some studied it exclusively from ancient books for a while.

This is a slightly complicated issue.

Most science in the Early Middle Ages was very practical. Christian people were not interested in philosophy in the way Jews and Muslims were, and so there were no great historical Christian schools of philosophy until the 11th century. The rise of formal schools based on new models, particularly the opening of universities, gave rise to a more abstract interest in philosophy. This happened in the period of the High Middle Ages. It included a tremendous increase in the hold of scholasticism in the schools of Western Europe, in which Aristotelian science reigned supreme. If you wanted to know anything about science, you read what Aristotle had to say about it. Clearly the effect was an impediment to progress, since to progress implied taking on ideas Aristotle never had.

[At this point, the popular understanding of history fails utterly. We live in a world where the Church is blamed for all sorts of things in the Middle Ages, and it turns out that a number of them never happened. In this case, we are told by some that the Church impeded scientific investigation, and it turns out this is wrong.]

The Church leaders, seeing the strict adherence to Aristotelian science, began to get upset at the dogmatism of the universities. They were particularly focused on the University of Paris, which had opened in 1150 as the second university in Western Europe, and the rigid enforcement of Aristotle's ideas by the teachers. Their investigation began reaching conclusions by 1210, and culminated with the Condemnations of 1277, which, in effect, made it a heresy to teach that Aristotle was always right.

There are a few historians who believe that the Condemnations of 1277 marked the beginnings of modern science. Certainly, after they were made, scientists were free to observe nature empirically, draw conclusions, and progress their understanding. This situation lasted for the most part until the Renaissance. I should point out that Western Science was influenced by Islamic science from a time shortly after Islam began. Islamic science derived its understanding from many sources, including classical authors from Europe, but also from Persia, India, and China. In addition, it was powerfully empirical in its pursuit of truth.

Because of this, Islamic science of the 13th century was in some ways superior to that of Europe for a very long time. The Church did not oppose this, but a few scholars did, particularly in the field of medicine, and particularly after the Middle Ages. The result was that the medical care George Washington got was quite possibly inferior to what was available in medieval Islamic Spain.

I would also argue that in terms of science, the Renaissance represented a retreat in the direction of superstition in some respects. While it made use of linear perspective and its artists had a better understanding of anatomy, it was also a time of frequent witch hunts and general inquisitions on a grand scale.

Refer to the related links for more information.

Answer 3

They accepted things as they appeared.