Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Age of the Earth

2012-02-18T17:39:14Z

Chuckles: /* Decay rates, again */

The statement that "Charles Lyell supported Hutton's idea in 1830, in Principles of Geology" seems inadequate. Did Lyell set forth a scientific theory about an Old Earth in 1830? I'm skeptical.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 12:38, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
:Lyell was a geologist who created several theories related to the geologic age of the earth, including I believe uniformitarianism, and contained in his book ''Principles of Geology''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 12:50, 18 June 2007 (EDT)
::Here's a copy of "Principles of Geology". The table of Contents is in HTML, but the text in PDF. [http://www.esp.org/books/lyell/principles/facsimile/contents.htm] The first few chapters are about the development of ideas of the age of the earth.--[[User:Epicurius|Steve]] 13:45, 18 June 2007 (EDT)

==Helium diffusion, polonium halos, C14 dating==

All of these methods give ample evidence for a young earth(C14 works best for more recent things). I was wondering if anyone wanted to write about these(If not, I can do some independent research for this article, but I'm in school right now so I can't promise anything).

-- [[User:RichardT|RichardT]]<sup>[[user talk:RichardT|Talk]]</sup> 23:26, 4 September 2007 (EDT)
:We already briefly discuss these in [[Young Earth Creationism]]. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:53, 5 September 2007 (EDT)

== Reversion explanation ==

The article doesn't say that individual scientists haven't been around for billions of years, it says that the scientific ''community'' hasn't been around that long. The people of God ''have'' been around for six thousand or so years, so have direct, first-hand records of the earliest days of creation. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 15:41, 7 June 2011 (EDT)

:The age of the scientific community and what the term "scientific community" means can be debated, and that's the point - this debate and the current debate over which group has the more accurate age of the Earth shouldn't be in the overview section of the article but instead represented in the sections dealing with the controversy over the age of the Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 17:41, 8 June 2011 (EDT)

==Atheism and Old Earth Theories==

The opening section of this article currently states that “atheists ... insist that Earth is somehow 4.5 billion years old” but it implies that all atheists (or only atheists) believe the Earth is billions of years old. This is incorrect and the section should be clarified: it is the majority scientific community that assert the Earth is billions of years old, regardless of religious orientations of individuals in this community. Simply put, not all atheists believe the Earth is billions of years old and not all Christians or others with religion believe the Earth is only thousands of years old. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:40, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

: Would you likewise object to a statement that "Republicans oppose Obama's policies"?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:16, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

:: Yes, it's to general of a statement – ''conservatives'' oppose the ''liberal policies'' of the Obama administration, or it can be said that the Republican Party (leadership) opposes the Obama administration. Not all Republicans are conservative on all issues (e.g. the Log Cabin Republicans) and not all of Obama's polices are liberal (e.g. keeping Guantanamo Bay's prison open). The statement would be similar to asserting that Republicans agree on all issues (otherwise why would Republicans bother to have a presidential primary) and that the Obama administration is consistently liberal (they've done plenty of flip flopping to try and gain votes in the upcoming election). So bringing this back to the current article, the overview section (or opening section, whatever one would like to call it) should be more explicit on which groups are putting forward the Young-Earth vs. Old-Earth theories. When it comes to Old-Earth theories - "atheists" is to general of a term and insinuates that those of the scientific community that support Old-Earth theories are without religion. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 23:55, 10 June 2011 (EDT)

::: Your objection would silence many useful observations. Under your view, is it wrong to say that obesity is unhealthy? There may be one case out of a million where the person is actually better off getting fatter. If that case exists, would you object to commenting about the majority?--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:::: Unfortunately, you've missed my point. What I was referring to is the need to avoid over generalizing and casting all old Earth supporters into the ranks of atheists; there is a need to rework the opening section of this article for greater clarity. To say that supporters of an old Earth are atheists is making too big of an assumption, especially if one's religion espouses an old Earth.
:::: And I hardly think your analogy of obesity and health applies to your original loaded question regarding the political persuasions of Americans: I'm sure far more than 1 in a million Democrats oppose Obama and far more than 1 in a million Republicans support Obama's more conservative polices - America's not that black & white, nor is the issue of who are the supporters of old Earth vs. young Earth. --[[User:Mike127|Mike127]] 22:44, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=6 thousand years old=

I was wondering, is there a reason why this number is written in this way? personally I would either say "6,000 years old" or "six thousand years old", but I wanted to ask for your opinions before changing it. --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:42, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:No particular reason. Either of your suggested edits would be fine.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:48, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

:Thanks, change implemented. Personally I think that little, apparently meaningless details like this improve the perceived quality of an encyclopedia. I chose 6,000 years because it's more "visually immediate" than "six thousand". --[[User:LeonardO|Leo-from-UK]] 19:53, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

::You're right. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 19:54, 14 June 2011 (EDT)

=Exact age=

I have not been able to find out an exact age. It is always referred to as "about 6,000 y.o".
Has anyone found a study calculating the exact age of the Earth ? --[[User:ARamis|ARamis]] 20:02, 6 September 2011 (EDT)

: No, I haven't, and wouldn't expect to find one. Dates of events far more recent than creation are in dispute.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 20:14, 6 September 2011 (EDT)
::Tends to be anywhere from 5-10k years. Depends on if you follow ushers example and dont think there mght be some names missing from the lists of names in genesis and the gospels.--[[User:SeanS|SeanS]] 22:24, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

== Why the removal? ==

Why was the mention of Old Earth removed? The fact of the matter is, the majority of the scientific community has accepted radiometric dating as true, and that the Earth is in fact 4 billion years old. Also, why does it matter what historic figures felt the age of the Earth to be. Isn't this an appeal to tradition? Our ancestors also believed that, prior to Christianity, the Sun and Moon were Gods. Should their opinions be held to be correct as well? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 08:32, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::First, must? Second, secularist/deistic fashions among scientists don't carry a lot of weight. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 08:54, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::So if they disagree with you they are automatically inferior and their opinion matters less? That's dancing awfully close to censorship isn't it? [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 09:39, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::I don't see in his reply anywhere that he stated he disagreed with those ideas, and whether or not anyone does is irrelevant. Passing scientific fads never carry much weight, regardless of our personal views on the matter. (Conservative, please correct me if I misstate your views). Thank you! [[User:KevinDavis|Kevin Davis]] <sup>[[User talk:KevinDavis|Talk]]</sup> 12:40, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
::::::Passing scientific fads? The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years. So dismissing them is either a willful dismissal for several of the key theories that make up our understanding of the universe, how it works, and how it came into being out of hand; or simply a dismissal of these as contrary to what the author wishes to believe. It seems Conservative is saying it is the latter, as they are wrong simply because they are secular. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 12:52, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::So you're saying the author should not believe in God at all? We have to believe in these scientific theories without question or criticism? We have to accept them as fact, regardless of conflicting evidence? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:49, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:::::::::No, but you need to state where the majority of the scientific community lies and what evidence they place stock in. Most of those who are not members of the YEC (which is a minority) do not hold to the idea that the Earth is less than 4 billion years old. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
JohnPaul, you wrote: "The basis of scientific thought today, outside of creation science, is that the Earth is older than 4 billion years." You are either not being truthful or you are seriously deceived. Any cursory review of the history of science shows the scientific opinion about the age of the earth has changed multiple times and all the while this was occurring there was plenty of scientific progress which was going on. Plus, there is plenty of science that occurs where the age of the earth is irrelevant to the investigation at hand. In addition, you seriously need a better understanding between mere opinion and fact. For example, it is fact that scientific opinion has changed multiple times about the age of the earth. Now you may say that now it is "near fact" about the age of the earth being whatever age is fashionable now among some errant scientific circle, but given your previously illogical pronouncement please don't expect people to kowtow to your pronouncement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:05, 24 October 2011 (EDT)
:As I said, since the advent of radiometric dating, the consistent concensus has been that the tests of radiometric dating have all stated that the Earth is at least 4 billion years old. If you wish to question radiometric dating then fine, but you should at least mention it as a major stubmling block towards YEC. [[User:JohnPaulJonesRevWar|JohnPaulJonesRevWar]] 19:37, 24 October 2011 (EDT)

== Decay rates ==

I don't think this article should say that the assumption that decay rates have stayed constant is "implausible," for the simple reason that it isn't. I don't for a minute think it's a CORRECT assumption, but for it to be an IMPLAUSIBLE one there would have to be a reason why they COULDN'T have remained constant; there is no more reason why they couldn't have remained constant than there is one why they couldn't have changed. Unless someone can give a reason why decay rates MUST change the word "implausible" is not appropriate. --[[User:ArtWellesley|ArtWellesley]] 22:01, 30 December 2011 (EST)

:It is obviously "implausible" because the universe is cooling over time, which would cause decay rates to change. It's no more possible for decay rates to remain constant than it would be for a sun to remain constant in energy.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:43, 30 December 2011 (EST)

== Decay rates, again ==

Do we discuss anything here or is everything too scared of the 90/10 rule to bother? In changing "unreliable" to "imprecise", I took the time to try to explain in the edit summary why I was doing so yet it seems others can't actually be bothered to explain why they disagree with the change. Once it's simply "Unnecessary Edit" and now you can apparently just indicate you agree with someone else by stating "Consensus". It would be nice to at least have the opportunity of trying to understand the objections to the change. I do wonder if I'd be wasting my time expanding on my reasoning. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 18:32, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:Since your reasoning is flawed, yes, it would be a waste of your time to expand on it. By the way, nitpicking individual words in a post doesn't count towards your 90/10 count, so focus on creating content, instead of pushing some nonsensical agenda against certain words. Does the word unreliable offend you, or is it that we don't treat evolutionists with kid gloves and euphemisms?
[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 18:43, 10 January 2012 (EST)

::I wouldn't accept that it is nitpicking. When I looked up info on some of the variations in decay rate that have been identified, none of them would make a significant difference to the magnitude of the time periods involved. None of them would explain the gap between 6,000-10,000 years old and the billions of years at the other end of the scale. They impact on the precision, not the reliability. That isn't to say there aren't other problems in assuming decay rate is a good way of determining the age of the earth but the possibility of variation in decay rate identified don't support the suggestion that what is known about decay is so wrong that the the figures calculated from it could be millions of times out. The facts as to the known variation of radioactive decay just don't support that. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 18:58, 10 January 2012 (EST)

So you admit that radioactive dating is wrong, but you won't admit that the results are wrong. I find your arguments to be non-sensical. TypicL liberal claptrap. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:36, 10 January 2012 (EST)

:No, I don't accept that radiometric dating is wrong or that the results are wrong, at least not to the degree you are alluding. I accept that some variations in decay rate have been identified which can affect the precision to which the method can date samples but what I cannot accept is that those undermine the fundamental principles behind radiometric dating. It seems you're trying to use these variations to suggest that the method must be so wrong that there could be scope for samples thought to be billions of years old actually being 6,000-10,000 years old but I just don't see how the facts as to what is known about those variations supports that. What we have here is a criticism of an assumption that the rate of radioactive decay is a constant followed by what is effectively simply an opposite assumption, that the rate of radioactive decay is completely not a constant. That despite the fact that there is no evidence to back up that assumption. If it is unwise to assume the rate is constant then surely it is just as unwise to assume the rate isn't constant. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 08:16, 11 January 2012 (EST)
I agree with Adambro, and I think you're jumping on the Ad Hominim attack quite quickly, faggot.--[[User:Chuckles|Chuckles]] 12:39, 18 February 2012 (EST)

Talk:Age of the Earth

2012-02-18T17:38:25Z

Chuckles: /* Decay rates, again */

The Renaissance

2012-02-18T17:17:31Z

Chuckles: Christianity was not a major drive behind the Rennaissance, so stop saying it was!

[[Image:Uffizi Gallery.jpg|thumb|300px|Uffizi museum, Florence.]]
'''The Renaissance''' was a cultural “rebirth” that began in [[Florence]], [[Italy]], but spread to all of Europe from about 1300 to 1600 (1700 in Northern Europe).

During this time period, Europeans experienced a renewed interest in classical Greek and Roman civilization, and subsequently, in learning science, mathematics, literature, the arts and philosophy. Christianity played a slight role in the renaissance as most of the scientific advancements had occurred earlier in the Arabian peninsula and the surrounding regions, and was just making it's way to Europe. The term “[[Renaissance man]]” has come to mean a person who is remarkably well-rounded and learned in every subject, as this is what was expected of men during the Renaissance of the Nobility.

*[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Renaissance_Terms Renaissance Terms (1300s - 1600s)]

=='''The Italian Renaissance'''==

[[Image: duomoflorence.jpg|thumb|left|320px|[[The Duomo]] of the [[The Duomo|Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral]] in [[Florence]]]]

The northern city-states of Italy were a perfect location for the Renaissance to occur, as [[Italian culture]] was built off of classical Greek and Roman civilization. They had become important and wealthy locations selling and trading during the [[Crusades]], and [[Muslim]] and [[Byzantine]] learning had been brought to Italy also during the Crusades. Florence in particular was home to wealthy families willing to finance artists, mainly the prominent [[Medici]] family. Lastly, the fierce competition that existed between the different city-states brought out the best in people and created an environment in which initiative and creativity flourished.

This quote by [[Leon Battista Alberti]], "men can do all things if they will" sums up the spirit of the Renaissance well. Three philosophies emerged during the Renaissance: [[individualism]], humanism and secularism. All three contained similarities and overlapped with one another to form the main philosophy, humanism.

=='''Artists'''==

The most lasting legacy of the Renaissance was probably the outstanding artwork it produced. Especially in Florence and [[Rome]], master artists emerged who produced astonishing works of art in sculpture, painting and architecture. The competitive spirit of the Italian city-states as well as the enormous wealth of families willing to patronize created a perfect environment for the flourishing of art.

[[Image: michelangelopieta.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Michelangelo's ''The Pietà'']]

One of the first artists to incorporate new ideas into his artwork was [[Giotto di Bondone]] (1267-1337) who brought unprecedented elements of realism in his paintings. [[Giotto]], a typical Renaissance jack-of-all-trades, also designed the innovative campanile (bell tower) for the [[The Duomo|Santa Maria del Fiore Cathedral]]or simply "[[The Duomo]]" in Florence. Flemish artists introduced oil paints, and the technique of perspective was introduced by artists like [[Tommaso Masaccio]] and [[Filippo Brunelleschi]]. Brunelleschi also designed the duomo (dome) for the Santa Maria del Fiore cathedral, a breakthrough in [[engineering]] and [[architecture]] that showed Brunelleschi’s deep understanding of mathematics.

[[Donatello]] (1386-1466) was an influential painter and sculpture of the early Renaissance from Florence. He sculpted a bronze “[[Donatello's David|David]],” the first free-standing nude statue since the days of the Greeks and Romans, and another famous statue of [[Donatello's St. George|St.George]]. [[Tiziano Vicelli|Titian]] (Tiziano Vicelli) (1477-1576) was a painter with an unprecedented use of color and loose brushwork, evident in his stunning masterpiece [[The Assumption of the Virgin]]. [[Raphael]] (1482-1520) also mastered the use of color and painted beautiful frescoes in churches and for private patrons, the most famous of which may be [[The School of Athens]], an interesting painting depicting [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] surrounded by their pupils. He inspired the two greatest artists of the Renaissance: [[Michelangelo]] and [[Leonardo da Vinci|Leonardo Da Vinci]].

[[Michelangelo]] (1475) is best known for his statue of [[Michelangelo's David|David]] and for painting the ceiling of the [[Sistine Chapel]], an astounding [[fresco]] including over 300 Biblical figures, that took over 4 years to complete. He also sculpted amazing renditions of [[Moses]] and “[[Michelangelo'sPieta|the Pietà]],” a poignant sculpture of Jesus in Mary’s arms after the [[Jesus' Crucifixion|crucifixion]]. Following Brunelleschi’s model Duomo in Florence, Michelangelo designed the dome for [[Vatican City|St. Peter’s Basilica]] in Rome. Although some say his earlier works (like David) reveal a humanistic outlook, later works (like the Pietà) reveal his deep and devout Christianity.

Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519) embodied the “Renaissance man.” He was an architect, anatomist, sculptor, scientist, mathematician, musician, and painter. He created masterpieces such as the [[Mona Lisa]] and [[The Last Supper]]. He kept notebooks full of drawings such as [[Vitruvian Man]], and his observations from dissecting human corpses. It is said that Leonardo could draw with one hand while at the same time painting with the other, and he wrote backwards in his notebooks, so they would have to be held up to a mirror to be read. He was way ahead of his time and created conceptual designs for many devices such as a flying machine and an armored tank. He was the first to come up with the ideas of the [[calculator]] and the use of solar power for energy.

[[Image: monalisa.jpg|thumb|left|200px|Leonardo Da Vinci's ''[[The Mona Lisa|Mona Lisa]]'']]

=='''Authors'''==

Many authors produced influential literary works during the Renaissance. [[Dante]] was the writer whose works some historians date as marking the beginning of the Renaissance, and he is called the father of the Renaissance. He was an Italian writer who wrote in the [[vernacular]], or common language, so his works gained popularity among ordinary people as well as scholars. His most famous work is [[The Divine Comedy]], which describes in vivid detail the author’s journey through hell (''Inferno''), purgatory (''Purgatorio'') and heaven (''Paradiso''). Although called a “comedy”, the book is anything but funny. This is because Dante was using the classical meaning of “comedy”, in which a story is not necessarily humorous, but ends happily and according to the divine will of God. In The Divine Comedy, Dante blends [[Greek philosophy]] with Christian theology, in the tradition of [[Thomas Aquinas]]. Dante’s guide through Hell is Virgil, and the greatest sinners present in Hell are [[Judas Iscariot]] (Jesus’ betrayer) and [[Brutus]] (Caesar’s betrayer).

Along with Dante, [[Francesco Petrarch]] (1304-1374) is considered a father of the Renaissance. He wrote beautiful poetry in Italian, but his books were written in Latin. His works and their focus on the classical philosophers inspired the humanism of the Renaissance.

[[Niccolo Machiavelli]] (1469-1527) wrote ''[[The Prince]]'', in which he explored the means by which a monarch can gain, retain, and increase his power. A prince must recognize the needs of the people, Machiavelli declared, and although his consensus was that it is better to be feared than loved, he

[[Image: michelangelodavid.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Michelangelo's [[Michelangelo's David|David]] ''...Men can do all things if they will.'']]

additionally stated that it is ideal to be both feared and loved. Machiavelli served under [[Lorenzo Medidi]] of Florence, but was exiled. It was during his exile that he wrote ''The Prince''. Today the word “[[Machiavellian]]” has come to mean any unreasonable philosophy by which “the end justifies the means.”
==Civic Humanism==
See also [[Republicanism]] and [[Machiavelli]]

Pocock (1981)traces the Machiavellian belief in and emphasis upon Greco-Roman ideals of unspecialized civic virtue and liberty from 15th-century Florence through 17th-century England and Scotland to 18th-century America. Thinkers who shared these ideals tended to believe that the function of property was to maintain an individual's independence as a precondition of his virtue. Consequently, in the last two times and places mentioned above, they were disposed to attack the new commercial and financial regime that was beginning to develop.<ref>J. G. A. Pocock, "The Machiavellian Moment Revisited: a Study in History and Ideology.: ''Journal of Modern History'' 1981 53(1): 49-72. </ref>

The influential concept of civic humanism of German Renaissance scholar Hans Baron (1900-88) emphasized the male citizen's participation in the republic of Florence. He saw medieval religion as antithetical to this republicanism and denied religion any constitutive role in Renaissance culture. In medieval Thomism there is a broader concept of participation than that of Baron. Despite the supposed ignoring of religion by Jacob Burckhardt (1818-97), he asserted that Lorenzo de' Medici (1449-92) reclaimed medieval spirituality in his late writings. Lorenzo's writings point toward a broader definition of participation to include human associations that focused on charity, thereby including men and women in participatory roles in society.<ref> Jane Tylus, "Charitable Women: Hans Baron's Civic Renaissance Revisited." ''Rinascimento'' [Italy] 2003 43: 287-307. Issn: 0080-3073 </ref>

Najemi (1996) examines Hans Baron's ambivalent portrayal of Machiavelli. He argues that Baron tended to see Machiavelli simultaneously as the cynical debunker and the faithful heir of civic humanism. By the mid-1950s, Baron had come to consider civic humanism and Florentine republicanism as early chapters of a much longer history of European political liberty, a story in which Machiavelli and his generation played a crucial role. This conclusion led Baron to modify his earlier negative view of Machiavelli. He tried to bring the Florentine theorist under the umbrella of civic humanism by underscoring the radical differences between ''The Prince'' (which seems to recommend the Prince should doing evil) and the ''Discourses'' (which recommends the citizens should do good) and thus revealing the fundamentally republican character of the ''Discourses''. However, Baron's inability to come to terms with Machiavelli's harsh criticism of early 15th-century commentators such as Leonardo Bruni ultimately prevented him from fully reconciling Machiavelli with civic humanism.<ref> John M. Najemy, "Baron's Machiavelli and Renaissance Republicanism." ''American Historical Review'' 1996 101(1): 119-129. </ref>

==Historiography==
During the Renaissance there was an explicit self-awareness on the part of humanists, involving a disdain for medieval traditions and art forms, a rejection of scholastic philosophy, and a quest for a purer form of Latin, as discovered in the classics. Italy was the center of this new realization by 1300; by 1600 an expanded version was widely disseminated across western Europe. North of the Alps humanists like the Dutch Erasmus sought the reform of Christian society through classical education. They envisioned the rebirth ("re-naissance") of the Golden Age through the rebirth of good writing. As the tutors the European aristocracy, humanists saw their ideas accepted by the top ranks of the ruling classes.
[[File:Niccolo Machiavelli Uffizi.jpg|left|200px|Niccolo Machiavelli in the Uffizi.]]
French intellectual historian [[Pierre Bayle]] wrote a highly influential ''Historical and Critical Dictionary'' (1695-1697), read by scholars across Europe, which promoted the incorrect notion that the rebirth of letters began in 1453 when the fall of Constantinople sent Greek scholars into exile in the West. (Greeks had come 200 years earlier.) During the [[Enlightenment]], French historian [[ Voltaire]] portrayed the Renaissance as a crucial stage in the liberation of the human mind from medieval superstition and error, as promulgated by the Catholic Church. Voltaire exaggerated the decline of traditional religion in the Renaissance, for most of the Italian humanists were devout Catholics. The [[Romantic]] movement of the 19th century, typified by the poet [[Robert Browning]], explored with fascinated disapproval the pagan and immoral qualities of Renaissance man. Romantics, interested in the vital, heroic, and unconventional personalities of Renaissance artists, added the theme of the Renaissance as the invention of individualism.

In the 19th century, the great romantic historians Jules Michelet (1798-1874) focused on the French Renaissance and Jacob Burckhardt (1818–97) interpreted at Italy. In both cases they assumed there had been an abrupt and fundamental change in society: the Middle Ages end and the modern world suddenly begins. Michelet abhorred the Middle Ages; Burckhardt and Johan Huizinga (1872-1945) did not, but each explored the ways in which a dynamic Renaissance could develop from static medieval culture. Each historian brought his own personal history and ideals to his study of culture, cultural change, and the idea of modernism.<ref> Jo Tollebeek, "'Renaissance' and 'Fossilization': Michelet, Burckhardt, and Huizinga." ''Renaissance Studies'' 2001 15(3): 354-366. </ref>

Burckhardt articulated the single most fruitful idea about the Renaissance: "the discovery of the individual," which dominated historical writing for a century. His approach came under challenge from postmodern scholars in the 1970s. The contributions of the New Historicists, particularly literary historian Stephen Greenblatt, have made it impossible to approach the history of individualism in traditional humanistic terms. Accordingly, postmodern scholars now view the "individual" as a cultural construct rather than as an underlying human "essence" or "protagonist" in narratives of modernization or progress. Martin (1997) challenges the postmoderns and offers a new reading of the history of individualism in the Renaissance. He argues many New Historicist practices are inadequate because they tend to ignore long-term historical shifts in the Western European vocabulary of selfhood and to envision constructions of the self as shaped by a narrowly defined cultural context. The history of individualism in the Renaissance should be approached as a discursive field in which there was a new understanding of "prudence" as a strategy for concealing one's views and sentiments and a newly invented notion of "sincerity" that called for the expression of personal convictions and feelings. As a result of the tension between these two ideals, the Renaissance self came to be defined in increasingly expressive and individualistic terms. Because these ideals had a European-wide currency and developed over several generations, the origins of individualism cannot be traced in any exclusive manner to specific national contexts or particular moments in time. Rather than a return to traditional assumptions about the self, Martin's approach encourages discussions of individualism and identity to take into account two critical issues: the need to remain open to complex intellectual and cultural forces that transcend particular times and places, and the need to recognize that the Renaissance sense of interiority was often immune to precisely the sort of ideological manipulation that New Historicists have seen as decisive in the construction of identities.<ref>John Martin, "Inventing Sincerity, Refashioning Prudence: the Discovery of the Individual in Renaissance Europe." ''American Historical Review'' 1997 102(5): 1309-1342. </ref>

Bouwsma (1979) laments the virtual collapse in recent historiography of the venerable conception of the Renaissance as a decisive turning point in the drama of Western history and to the postmodern substitution for it of the vague notion of the Renaissance as an "age of transition" to the modern world. This shift is attributed to a general tendency in recent historiography to minimize process in favor of structure. However valuable in some respects, structuralist history is not well adapted to explain change, argues Bouwsma. As a result, it has undermined the dramatic organization of Western history and - since historiography cannot finally dispense with dramatic patterns of some kind - opened the way for a "myth of apocalyptic modernization" that rejects the relevance of all but the most recent past to the present. The traditional idea of the Renaissance, since it saw the modern world as the goal of linear history, was itself vitiated by apocalypticism. Detached from this metahistorical assumption, however, it is still useful to explain much (if not all) in contemporary culture, in the meaning of that term now common among anthropologists.<ref>William J. Bouwsma, "The Renaissance and the Drama of Western History." ''American Historical Review'' 1979 84(1): 1-15</ref>

===Studying history===
Medieval history was consisted primarily of descriptive chronicles. Humanism in created a new kind of historical writing, with attention to motives and causes, animated by a belief that the study of the past had direct applications to governance and military science, and a sense that historical change is best understood in the context of deep values. Leonardo Bruni, one of the earliest humanist historians, presents the history of Florence as a battle between tyranny and civil liberty. Sabellicus presents Venice as the successor of the ancient Greek ideal of the independent city-state. Political history was a seen as to statecraft argued by Machiavelli and Polydore Vergil.

==Organization==
The Renaissance Society of America formed in 1954 with about 700 members. It now has several thousand, and held its 54th annual meeting at the Renaissance Hotel in Chicago, 3-5 April 2008.<ref> The [http://www.rsa.org/pdfs/2008/2008ProgramBook.pdf 2008 program is online]; [http://www.rsa.org/meetings/past2009.php the 2009 program is online]; [http://www.rsa.org/meetings/annualmeeting.php the 2010 meeting will be in Venice]</ref>
== See also ==

*[[Painting Masterpieces]]
*[[Painting Schools]]
*[[Fra Angelico]]

==Further Reading==
* Abbagnano, Nicola. "Renaissance Humanism" in Philip P. Wiener, ed. ''The Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Studies of Selected Pivotal Ideas,'' (1974) [http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhiana.cgi?id=dv4-19 online edition]
* Brotton, Jerry. ''The Renaissance: A Very Short Introduction'' (2006) [http://www.amazon.com/Renaissance-Very-Short-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0192801635/ref=sr_1_14?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862562&sr=1-14 excerpt and text search]
* Burckhardt, Jacob. ''The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy'' (1860), a famous classic; [http://www.amazon.com/Civilization-Renaissance-Italy-Jacob-Burckhardt/dp/1426400934/ref=sr_1_56?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206863071&sr=1-56 excerpt and text search 2007 edition]; also [http://books.google.com/books?id=kLkNAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=inauthor:Burckhardt+inauthor:Jacob&lr=&num=30&as_brr=1 complete text online]
* ''Cambridge Modern History,'' ''Vol. 1. The Renaissance'' (1903), older atticles by scholars [http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/camenaref/cmh/cmh.html#cmh1 complete text online]
* Campbell, Gordon. ''The Oxford Dictionary of the Renaissance.'' (2003). 862 pp. online at [[OUP]]
* Grendler, Paul F., ed. ''The Renaissance: An Encyclopedia for Students.'' (2003). 970 pp.
* Fletcher, Stella. ''The Longman Companion to Renaissance Europe, 1390-1530.'' (2000). 347 pp.
* Hale, John. ''The Civilization of Europe in the Renaissance.'' (1994). 648 pp.; a magistral survey, heavily illustrated [http://www.amazon.com/Civilization-Europe-Renaissance-John-Rigby/dp/0684803526/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206865650&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Hall, Bert S. ''Weapons and Warfare in Renaissance Europe: Gunpowder, Technology, and Tactics'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Weapons-Warfare-Renaissance-Europe-Technology/dp/0801869943/ref=sr_1_35?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862847&sr=1-35 excerpt and text search]
* Hattaway, Michael, ed. ''A Companion to English Renaissance Literature and Culture.'' (2000). 747 pp.
* Johnson, Paul. ''The Renaissance: A Short History.'' (2000). 197 pp. [http://www.amazon.com/Renaissance-History-Modern-Library-Chronicles/dp/B0002NKDU2/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206864835&sr=8-1 excerpt and text search]
* King, Margaret L. ''Women of the Renaissance'' (1991) [http://www.amazon.com/Women-Renaissance-Culture-Society/dp/0226436187/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862562&sr=1-21 excerpt and text search]
* Kristeller, Paul Oskar, and Michael Mooney. '' Renaissance Thought and its Sources'' (1979) [http://www.amazon.com/Renaissance-Thought-Sources-Oskar-Kristeller/dp/0231045131/ref=sr_1_19?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862562&sr=1-19 excerpt and text search]
* Nauert, Charles G. ''Historical Dictionary of the Renaissance.'' (2004). 541 pp.
* Patrick, James A., ed. ''Renaissance and Reformation'' (5 vol 2007), 1584 pages; comprehensive encyclopedia
* Plumb, J. H. ''The Italian Renaissance'' (2001) [http://www.amazon.com/Italian-Renaissance-J-H-Plumb/dp/0618127380/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862337&sr=1-1 excerpt and text search]
* Ross, James Bruce, and Mary M. McLaughlin, eds. ''The Portable Renaissance Reader'' (1977) [http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Renaissance-Reader-James-Bruce/dp/0140150617/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862337&sr=1-8 excerpt and text search]
* Rowse, A. L. ''The Elizabethan Renaissance: The Life of the Society'' (2000) [http://www.amazon.com/Elizabethan-Renaissance-Life-Society/dp/156663315X/ref=sr_1_20?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862562&sr=1-20 excerpt and text search]
* Ruggiero, Guido, ed. ''A Companion to the Worlds of the Renaissance.'' (2002). 561 pp.
* Sider, Sandra. ''Handbook to Life in Renaissance Europe'' (2007) [http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Life-Renaissance-Europe/dp/0195330846/ref=sr_1_36?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862847&sr=1-36 excerpt and text search]
* Rundle, David, ed. ''The Hutchinson Encyclopedia of the Renaissance.'' (1999). 434 pp.; numerous brief articles [http://www.questia.com/read/95888138?title=The%20Hutchinson%20Encyclopedia%20of%20the%20Renaissance online edition]
* Speake, Jennifer and Thomas G. Bergin, eds. ''Encyclopedia of the Renaissance and the Reformation.'' (2004). 550 pp.
* Turner, Richard N. ''Renaissance Florence'' (2005) [http://www.amazon.com/Renaissance-Florence-Reissue-Perspectives-Richard/dp/0131344013/ref=sr_1_15?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1206862562&sr=1-15 excerpt and text search]
====references====
<references/>

[[category:European History]]
[[Category:Medieval History]]
[[Category:Republicanism]]
[[Category:Renaissance]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Renaissance}}