Back in the days of yore, when philosophy = science (ca 1000 BCE to 1500 CE), scholastically the discipline of theology was their equal (actually their master),

Back in the days of yore, when philosophy = science (ca 1000 BCE to 1500 CE), scholastically the discipline of theology was their equal (actually their master), and constrained to function within a single possible world -- that of the orthodox religious belief system of the day (as reinforced by the king's church and horsemen). Before the Enlightenment, philosophers were allowed a tiny amount of latitude to look outside the accepted world of the theologists, so long as they firmly denied such worlds to be 'possible'. But after the Enlightenment, those bolder philosophers evolved into scientists as their imaginations broke the theologists' shackles, insisting that truth was not a matter of belief, but of objective demonstrated consistency with rigorous logic AND theory AND guided by experiment. Now possible worlds were invaluable to scholarship, both philosophically and scientifically, as models were imagined to fit the available evidence and converted into testable form within this physical world. But alternative worlds were not off limits, as Einstein's general relativity demonstrated so vividly. Yet even after the Enlightenment, many philosophers and most (all?) theologists did not follow the scientist philosophers into their brave new worlds, preferring to remain within the comfortable confines of the world chosen by their intellectual and spiritual forefathers. My point? Truth became relative for these three groups, dependent on which possible world(s) they chose to inhabit. And my second point: the worlds inhabited by philosophers and scientists today are most certainly different, substantiating the validity of different truths.