4 ms·
Your second and third sentence kind of contradict each other.
by cholantesh 9y ago
Your second and third sentence kind of contradict each other.
- vlunkr 9y agoNo, they came to the same conclusion
- cholantesh 9y agoBut to say something was ahead of something else implies a clear path. I think these are separate spheres of thought that make similar claims, the difference is that they make it on different bases.
- mschuster91 9y agoNo, they do not. For example, look at Jewish and Muslim food laws. Back at 0AD (and earlier) science didn't know about microorganisms, but the population sure knew that e.g. mixing milk and meat was dangerous. Or that knackers, slaughterhouses and burial sites must be outside city limits to prevent disease spread.
- yoz-y 9y agoIn year 0, the science did not know anything because "science" as we define it today did not exist. The scientific method was not widely practiced until 16th century (and even then it was severely limited).
- animal531 9y agoAnd in another 2000 years people will laugh at you calling what we do today science. Sure, we invented a process we defined as the scientific method; but it's unfair to say that ancient people, philosophers, medical practitioners etc. didn't practice their own version thereof.
- cholantesh 9y agoScience is a method, it doesn't 'know' anything. Anyway, to say that there's no competition, but argue that one school of thought is 'ahead' implies a destination that both (and potentially others) are racing towards.