[meheleventyone]

Loss of records is not loss of skills or knowledge though. And the Dark Ages wiki you link talks about how the term fell out of use amongst historians for being inaccurate.

To quote:

"Science historian David C. Lindberg criticised the public use of 'dark ages' to describe the entire Middle Ages as "a time of ignorance, barbarism and superstition" for which "blame is most often laid at the feet of the Christian church, which is alleged to have placed religious authority over personal experience and rational activity".[52] Historian of science Edward Grant writes that "If revolutionary rational thoughts were expressed in the Age of Reason, they were made possible because of the long medieval tradition that established the use of reason as one of the most important of human activities".[53] Furthermore, Lindberg says that, contrary to common belief, "the late medieval scholar rarely experienced the coercive power of the church and would have regarded himself as free (particularly in the natural sciences) to follow reason and observation wherever they led".[54] Because of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire due to the Migration Period a lot of classical Greek texts were lost there, but part of these texts survived and they were studied widely in the Byzantine Empire and the Abbasid Caliphate. Around the eleventh and twelfth centuries in the High Middle Ages stronger monarchies emerged; borders were restored after the invasions of Vikings and Magyars; technological developments and agricultural innovations were made which increased the food supply and population. And the rejuvenation of science and scholarship in the West was due in large part to the new availability of Latin translations of Aristotle.[55]"

ETA: Also didn't realise you're the same person I replied to below!

[ziaddotcom]

No worries if you didn't catch that I was the same person.

Your catch proves that issue is not remotely settled, and to my mind, indicates that more rigorous counsel with historians will only add depth to debate, rather than resolve it.

[meheleventyone]

I don't think UncleMeat's frustration is that these things are easily resolved but that people aren't getting even the basics right. Like the continuing lay beliefs about "the dark ages". And by doing so people are constructing false narratives of how knowledge has been lost from their own ignorance.

[ziaddotcom]

I think UncleMeat's wife probably knows a hell of a lot more than I do about history, and contextualizing whatever horseshittery that has been propagated about the notion of the dark ages. The problem is rather than provide a link to a book or an article in refutation to Jonathan Blow or myself, UncleMeat has sort of just rattled off some history and said their wife is a history professor. Hardly what I think UncleMeat would have been satisfied as enough scholarly rigor for Jonathan Blow his talk with remotely the same framing. The retort along the lines of "but this is just a lil ole internet forum" goes out the window, when the call for rigor was made on said forum by said person.

I would suggest UncleMeat just advocate that people like Jonathan Blow take the history out entirely, and argue why this contemporary technology isn't good enough relative to our resources and skills.

[meheleventyone]

Personally I think UncleMeat's criticism is dead on and exactly why as you say Jon should take the historical argument out. Although you'd get a much less pithy title without collapsing civilizations.

Arguments about sourcing feel like face saving rather than legitimate criticism of the view bought forward by UncleMeat. After all the original video is completely unsourced but apparently beyond reproach in that regard. Also where we have sourcing (for example the Dark Ages wiki) it only strengthens the point made by UncleMeat as they were indeed correct about the views of historians.

More broadly if we want discussion to be well sourced we shouldn't apply that selectively and in particular selectively against the people who disagree with us.

[ziaddotcom]

Fair enough, but I enjoyed the talk as is. I tried to give sources in defense of UncleMeat but I can only overcome my own bias so much.

I'm not interested in getting suckered into believing some randall carlson gobbledygook, the type I might leap to assume UncleMeat would find quite problematic.

I just think UncleMeat initially came in, said something along the lines "this is bad, don't do this, ask people who know better" and it has been made clear they had the capacity to contribute more that what read to me as nothing more than the logical fallacy that is an appeal to authority. They have clarified their position enough to where I can no longer be left with such impression.