So, tell me /his/, was The Renaissance shit? Was it only focused on drawing naked dudes and feelings rather than doing science?
The Renaissance saw the beginning of scientific method - which involved conducting an experiment, collecting observations, then coming to a conclusion.
Galileo Galilei and Francis Bacon were among the first European scientists to use the scientific method as we know it, taking over from the Greek method that prioritized rational thought over empiricism.
>Why do people on this board hate science so much
the problem of the natural science is that they are based on exciting, manipulating things in order to reach knowledge, truth, universality and other fantasies.
so far it fails and they cannot even motivate their stance.
doing the contrary, which means striving for stillness, of body and mind, gives far better results since it gives certainty: certainty that we feel is less personal and less permanent that we notice when exciting things, plus certainty that happiness goes thru stillness and that once stillness is achieved, there is nothing more to life...
I don't think any reasonable person hates "science". As /sci/posters and the like are so fond of saying, we wouldn't even be having this discussion without the contributions of science to humanity.
What is (rightfully) disliked is the frequent, largely unexamined claims of STEMfags that science is the only acceptable form of knowledge, that science has the capacity to provide meaningful insight on every aspect of the human condition, and that if something is not the direct result of scientific inquiry then it's not worthwhile or relevant, because reasons.
The Renaissance was a bunch of bloody Italians poncing about pretending to be the second coming of the Greeks.
If you mean the late Medieval/early Modern era, then no, it wasn't shit, important advances in the fields of knowledge have been almost constant since the Carolingian Renaissance.
>Comparing Kepler to YEC
There was plenty of evidence at the time you dumbshit.
It was great. The people who say it's shit are autistic Christian reactionaries or the kind of contrarians who go on about how the Dark Ages never happened.
What's wrong about the usual idea of the Renaissance is that it was a 'revival' of Western civilization and not just another stage in the West's cultural development, just like the Gothic, Romanesque, and Carolinian developments before it.
The truth is that the Renaissance was just a continuation of the late Medieval period, not some kind of all consuming transformation. That said, don't believe the bullshit idea that the Renaissance wasn't real. It was a very real cultural movement associated with the growth of humanism and saw the West reach greater heights than it ever had before.