English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

From the 12 th century onwards, prognostic disciplines were part and parcel of the Latin ordo scientiarum. This is true for astrology and divination as well as for medicine and weather forecasting. While scholarly research has focused very much on the moral discussions of knowledge of the future in the Middle Ages, the epistemological challenge of integrating this form of knowledge into a coherent theoretical framework has been ne glected so far. This article shows how the traditional account of prognostic disciplines as sign-based forms of knowledge was revised and refined during the 13 th century in the light of new philosophical (Aristotelian) and also theological paradigms. As a result of this, Latin philosophers and theologians established important criteria which allowed for a clear-cut epistemological distinction between different forms of prognostic signs and thus radicalized the discussion about the legitimacy of some prog nostic disciplines.

Signs vs. Causes? An Epistemological Approach to Prognosis in the Latin Middle Ages