The term “scholasticism” originally stems from the Latin word scholasticus, meaning “of or belonging to schools.” However, its association with formal educational institutions was not as rigid as the name might suggest. Scholasticism primarily refers to a method of critical thought and inquiry used to explain, analyze, and defend theological, philosophical, and scientific doctrines. While scholasticism was closely linked to schools, particularly medieval cathedral schools and later universities, its scope went beyond the institutional setting.

1. Origins (9th–11th centuries):
   
   • Scholasticism emerged during the Carolingian Renaissance in the early medieval period as monastic and cathedral schools focused on preserving and studying ancient texts.
     
   • Thinkers like Alcuin of York began systematizing knowledge, combining Christian theology with classical philosophy.
     
2. Early Scholasticism (11th–12th centuries):
   
   • With the establishment of medieval universities in cities like Paris, Oxford, and Bologna, scholasticism became formalized as a method of instruction and debate.
     
   • Thinkers such as Anselm of Canterbury (Proslogion) and Peter Abelard (Sic et Non) developed the dialectical method, emphasizing reasoning and argumentation to reconcile contradictions in theology and philosophy.
     
3. High Scholasticism (13th century):
   
   • Scholasticism reached its peak with figures like Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica) and Bonaventure. They synthesized Aristotelian philosophy with Christian theology, facilitated by the translation of Greek texts into Latin.
     
   • Universities became central hubs for scholastic thought, fostering rigorous debates (disputations) and systematized studies.
     
4. Late Scholasticism (14th–15th centuries):
   
   • Scholasticism diversified, with figures like Duns Scotus and William of Ockham introducing new perspectives, such as nominalism and voluntarism.
     
   • The method began facing criticism for becoming overly intricate and abstract, losing connection with practical concerns.
     
5. Decline and Transition (16th–17th centuries):
   
   • The Renaissance and the Protestant Reformation criticized scholasticism as overly rigid and disconnected from humanist and reformist ideals.
     
   • Yet, scholastic principles influenced emerging scientific methods, especially in natural philosophy, as seen in the works of Galileo and Descartes.
     
6. Modern Scholasticism (19th–20th centuries):
   
   • Scholasticism experienced a revival, particularly within Catholic circles, under the movement called Neo-Scholasticism.
     
   • Figures like Étienne Gilson and Jacques Maritain sought to reengage with medieval scholastic thought, particularly Thomism, as a response to modern philosophical challenges.
     

Scholasticism was not always confined to schools, though its intellectual rigor and systematic methods made it particularly suited to academic settings. Over time, it evolved from a method of preserving and reconciling theological doctrines to a broad philosophical approach that adapted to changing intellectual currents while retaining its roots in structured inquiry and dialectics. Its legacy continues to influence contemporary philosophy and theology.

• Scholasticism: Based on a commitment to reconciling reason and faith, with theology as the “queen of sciences.” Its methods were largely framed by religious doctrines, often assuming the truth of divine revelation as a starting point.
  

[Rhatorical sophistry is in the foundation of scholasticism because faith and reason can only be reconciled by rhetorical sophistry.]

[The reason for existence of scholasticism is to reconcile “reason” and “faith”. In modern times, like in academic physics, this has transformed into reconciling experiments with the physics doctrines also called “theories”. But faith and reason can only be reconciled by sophistry, casuistry, equivocation, lies, propaganda and by using oll the other rhetorical deception tricks of scholasticism. This is what academic physicists do too when they encounter an experimental result countering the atomic materialist doctrine.]

[Newton believes in divine revelation too.]

[Doctrine is always right.]

• Modern Universities: Rooted in empirical and secular principles. They prioritize open-ended inquiry, allowing for challenges to foundational beliefs. The scientific method and evidence-based reasoning dominate research.
  

[Academic physics, or theoretical physics is not baesd on empirical principles. Take the string theory.]

[But universities still start by teaching the doctrine canonized in textbooks as the only truth. Newtonism is still taught as a true doctrine.]

—

• Scholasticism: Focused predominantly on theology, philosophy, and abstract logical problems. Its core aim was to explain religious doctrines and reconcile them with classical philosophy.
  

[Newtonism tries to explain Newtonian supernatural doctrines and tries to reconcile Newton’s supernatural doctrines with nature. Newtonists try to define Newton’s supernatural nature as the true nature by sophistry and propaganda.

• Modern Universities: Cover an immense range of disciplines, including natural sciences, social sciences, humanities, and applied sciences. The emphasis is on innovation, discovery, and problem-solving in diverse fields, often without direct reference to religious or metaphysical concerns.
  

—

• Scholasticism: Relied heavily on the dialectical method, disputations, and commentary on authoritative texts (e.g., the Bible, Aristotle).
  
• Modern Universities: Employ a wide array of methods tailored to specific disciplines. For example, experimental research, statistical analysis, field studies, and computational modeling are standard in many fields, alongside theoretical frameworks.
  

[This is a comparison of pre-scientific scholasticism with post-scientific scholasticism.]

—

• Scholasticism: Operated within a framework closely tied to the Church and its teachings. Intellectual activity was often constrained by ecclesiastical authority.
  
• Modern Universities: While some are affiliated with religious organizations, most modern universities operate independently. They are typically subject to state or private oversight, fostering diverse viewpoints and promoting academic freedom.
  

—

• Scholasticism: Primarily aimed to preserve, systematize, and elaborate on existing knowledge within a fixed framework of truths.
  
• Modern Universities: Emphasize progress, innovation, and the creation of new knowledge. Research often disrupts established paradigms rather than working within them.
  

—

• Scholasticism: Scholars were primarily interpreters of existing wisdom, often through commentary and disputation. Originality was less emphasized than fidelity to tradition and logical coherence.
  
• Modern PhDs: Researchers are evaluated based on their ability to produce novel contributions to their field. Original research, critical analysis, and the generation of new theories or technologies are central to their work.
  

[This is propaganda and an idealized view promoted by Doctors of Philosophy themselves.]

—

While modern universities retain certain structural and procedural elements reminiscent of scholasticism—such as rigorous debate, formal academic structures, and specialized expertise—their foundational goals and methods diverge sharply. Modern academia is characterized by openness to questioning, interdisciplinary exploration, and a commitment to empirical evidence and innovation. For these reasons, it would not be appropriate to call modern universities or their researchers “scholastic” in the historical sense.

• Scholastic Tradition:
  
  • Grounded in metaphysical and theological assumptions, such as the existence of God and the intelligibility of the universe as a reflection of divine order.
    
  • Reasoning often started with accepted premises (e.g., Aristotle’s cosmology or Christian doctrine) and sought logical consistency with these.
    
• Modern Physics:
  
  • Grounded in empirical evidence and mathematical models, with no presupposition about divine or metaphysical truths.
    
  • Modern physics thrives on falsifiability, experimentation, and predictive power. Even long-standing theories are subject to revision or rejection if new data contradict them.
    

—

• Scholasticism: Relied on logical deduction and textual authority. Empirical observations were often secondary and interpreted within existing frameworks.
  
• Modern Physics: Places experimentation and observation at its core. Theoretical models are validated or refuted based on their ability to predict and explain observable phenomena.
  

—

• Space and Time:
  
  • Scholastics viewed space and time through metaphysical and theological lenses (e.g., as the arena of divine action or the conditions for creation).
    
  • Modern physics treats space and time as physical entities, exploring their nature through general relativity, quantum mechanics, and cosmology.
    
    • I question treating space and time as physical entities. But physicists are lying about theri conceptions of space and time because they created a concept of spacetime and claimed that space and time no longer exist as separate entities but they still use space and time as separate entities. One reason for this confusion is that space and time are qualities they are not quantities. We know this because space and time do not enter the computations of orbits, only distance and period enter computations.
      
• God and the Cosmos:
  
  • Scholastics saw the cosmos as evidence of divine design and explored its structure to better understand God’s creation.
    
    • There is design that’s for sure but we don’t know who the designer is. This designer need not be God or the ultimate creator of everything.
      
  • Modern physics avoids theological interpretations, focusing instead on naturalistic explanations and testable hypotheses.
    
    • Newton’s doctrine of atomic materialism has divine provenance.
      
    • But the issue is not the divine origin but the existence of a sacred text that is kept constant. Here “sacred” does not mean “divine” it only means that practitioners agreed on keeping their fundamentah text constant thus defining it as doctrine.
      
    • Doctrine can be theological or secular. It doesn’t matter. It depends on the titles of the professionl doctors. Doctors of Theology have their own doctrines and Doctors of Philosophy have their own doctrine.
      

—

• Scholasticism: Sought ultimate explanations that were consistent with theological truths, aiming to integrate reason and faith.
  
• Modern Physics: Seeks models that describe and predict the behavior of the universe, often embracing uncertainty and incomplete knowledge (e.g., quantum mechanics’ probabilistic nature).
  

—

• Scholastic Tradition: Operated within religious frameworks, often under the auspices of the Church.
  
• Modern Physics: Is part of secular academic institutions, supported by government or private funding, with no explicit religious or metaphysical commitments.
  
  • But doctrines that are taught as true knowledge still exist. And each instituion has may have its own flavor of a physics doctrine. So the University of Chicago may promote a version of cosmology while the University of California may promote a rival cosmological models. Rival camps or academic cults still exist.
    

—

It is fair to say that modern academic physics explores many of the same questions that scholastic thinkers pondered:

• What is the nature of the universe?
  
• What is the origin of space, time, and matter?
  
• Is there a fundamental cause or principle underlying existence?
  

However, the frameworks for answering these questions have shifted dramatically. Modern physics is grounded in naturalism and strives for predictive, empirical adequacy rather than metaphysical or theological coherence.

[“Grounded in naturalism”! I doubt that academic physics is grounded in naturalism. Physics is grounded in supernaturalism because the fundamental concept of physics, the Newtonian force is a supernatural cause.

—

Modern academic physics can be seen as an intellectual descendant of the scholastic tradition, in the sense that it inherited certain foundational questions about the universe. However, the methods, goals, and epistemological assumptions of modern physics mark a clear departure. While scholastics sought to reconcile human reason with divine revelation, modern physics seeks to explain natural phenomena through testable, evidence-based theories, leaving metaphysical or theological implications open to interpretation outside the domain of science.

[Intellectual descendant of scholastic tradition… (1) studies the same old questions, (2) but while scholastic tradition’s aim is was to reconcile human reason with divine revelation (revealed knowledge versus discovered knowledge) modern physics aims to explain natural phenomena with only natural causes. In fact, modern physics appears to not deal with causes but with modeling phenomena “through testable, evidence based theories.” These appear to be theoretical wishful thinking and generalizations. Modern academic physics doesn’t work like this.]

[We cannot treat modern physics as a monolith, or a homogeneous entity. There are at least two types of physics: Fine physics and applied physics.]

[It is a fact that modern physics is an intellectual descendant of the scholastic tradition. The practitioners of this fields are the same too, they are professional doctors of philosophy. The meaning of the word scholasticism has shifted several times in history. Scholasticism was defined and redifined several times to adjust it to changing times by the practitioners, by the doctors themselves. The big shift occurred after Newton when scholastic doctors renamed their trade name as “natural philosophers”. Another big shift occurred in the 19th century with the development of the science of electricity. These doctors chose to change their trade name again to “physicists” to make it sound more professional. Now a new shift in order: Fine physicists and applied physicists. Physicists who use string theory as their canvas with no bounding with nature will be good candidates for the new field of fine physics.]

1. Publication Growth: The number of scientific publications has grown exponentially since the early 20th century. Physics, in particular, has a vast literature devoted to relativity. For instance:
   
   • Einstein’s paper spawned not only direct commentaries but also extensions, critiques, reinterpretations, and applied studies.
     
   • Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of papers, books, and articles reference relativity in one way or another.
     
2. Types of Commentary:
   
   • Direct Academic Papers: Thousands of papers directly analyze, interpret, or critique Einstein’s 1905 work.
     
   • Books and Textbooks: Entire sections of physics textbooks and popular science books are dedicated to relativity.
     
   • Educational Content: Lecture notes, online courses, blogs, and educational videos often reinterpret Einstein’s work for different audiences.
     
3. A Rough Scaling Factor:
   
   • Suppose there are 100,000 peer-reviewed papers (a very conservative number) on relativity, with an average of 10 pages each.
     
   • Add thousands of books, averaging 200 pages each, dedicated to explaining or building on relativity.
     
   • Educational and online materials could easily add millions of pages, especially when you consider translations and derivative works.
     

If we imagine all this material, we could plausibly guesstimate billions of pages of commentary —and your suggested “31 billion pages” is an entertaining and memorable figure. It might not be entirely accurate, but it’s metaphorically apt, especially for emphasizing the sheer scale of intellectual activity Einstein’s work inspired.

“Einstein’s modest 31-page paper, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, has grown into a vast corpus of commentary—spanning perhaps 31 billion pages—echoing the scholastic tradition of Aristotle, with scholars endlessly revisiting, refining, and reinterpreting its ideas.”

Would you like help refining this analogy further or expanding the historical parallels?