4 ms·

> Universities have […] not fundamentally changed during [the past millennium]. I mean, that’s just completely wrong. The scientific method itself isn’t that o

by klmr 8y ago

> Universities have […] not fundamentally changed during [the past millennium]. I mean, that’s just completely wrong. The scientific method itself isn’t that old. The institution of Universities has been around for a thousand years, give or take. But if you were to compare them now and then, you’d find them mostly unrecognisable. Their aims, their organisation, their funding, their constituents … pretty much everything changed, multiple times, over the years. You might argue that they won’t change enough in 500 years to threaten the experiment and you might be right (I certainly hope so) but it’s far from obvious.

veddox 8y ago
First of all, universities are not per se linked to the scientific method as we understand it nowadays. (Also, assuming that the scientific method is the only valid way to achieve knowledge completely ignores almost everything that is not a natural science. But that is an aside, because we're specifically talking about universities as an institution here.) And I still argue that universities have not changed their fundamental nature, much as their exterior might have. Universities were founded as a universitas magistrorum et scholarium, a community of teachers and scholars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University), as they still are today. Already in medieval times, their two-fold purpose was to school the next generation of leaders and thinkers, and to provide a place for new knowledge to be discovered. That goal has not changed in any way. Even when you go into further detail, things haven't changed as much as you make out. Funding continues to come from tuition fees, governments, and other big public organisations with a stake in the outcome of the universities' work. Their students continue to be mostly well-to-do young people aiming for a higher career; be that administrative, educational, theological, medical, legal, or academic. Their organisation in many places still revolves around the core concept of a group of professors, each in charge of their own research group (with attached students), and collectively in charge of the whole corporation. Other things too: the teaching forms of lectures and seminaries, the international community of university scholars, all that hasn't really changed in the last 1000 years. Book suggestion: James Hannam, "God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science", is a good popular introduction into scholarship in the Middle Ages, and specifically talks about the rise of the university in this period. (https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848311508/ https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundation...)
- klmr 8y ago
  > First of all, universities are not per se linked to the scientific method as we understand it nowadays. Yes, that’s kind of my point: The introduction of the scientific method fundamentally changed research, and Universities as institutions. In fact, this dramatic change really cannot be overstated. Your comment appears to underestimate its importance. > Also, assuming that the scientific method is the only valid way to achieve knowledge completely ignores almost everything that is not a natural science. Again, kind of my point. It’s not the only valid way (though it’s the best general way we’ve discovered so far, and there are reasons to assume that it the best possible general way; and, importantly, it’s not restricted to natural science). (I forgot to say, thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll check it out.)
  - veddox 8y ago
    > Yes, that’s kind of my point: The introduction of the scientific method fundamentally changed research, and Universities as institutions. Hm, perhaps I misunderstood you? I fully agree that the rise of the scientific method around the time of Newton "fundamentally changed research". But I don't see how it had the same kind of impact on the university as an institution of higher learning and research. The structure of groups of scholars doing research (whatever method they used) didn't much change, after all - or am I wrong? If I am wrong, could you give some details, please? If you're interested, I reviewed the book here: https://terranostra.one/posts/Gods-Philosophers.html https://terranostra.one/posts/Gods-Philosophers.html (Though I didn't pay particular attention to the role of the universities in the review).
- Izkata 8y ago
  > Their students continue to be mostly well-to-do young people aiming for a higher career; be that administrative, educational, theological, medical, legal, or academic. That's very high-sounding, but at least in the US it's mostly just seen by huge swaths of high school students as High School Part II; the natural next step before getting a job.

by klmr 8y ago

veddox 8y ago

First of all, universities are not per se linked to the scientific method as we understand it nowadays. (Also, assuming that the scientific method is the only valid way to achieve knowledge completely ignores almost everything that is not a natural science. But that is an aside, because we're specifically talking about universities as an institution here.) And I still argue that universities have not changed their fundamental nature, much as their exterior might have. Universities were founded as a universitas magistrorum et scholarium, a community of teachers and scholars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University), as they still are today. Already in medieval times, their two-fold purpose was to school the next generation of leaders and thinkers, and to provide a place for new knowledge to be discovered. That goal has not changed in any way. Even when you go into further detail, things haven't changed as much as you make out. Funding continues to come from tuition fees, governments, and other big public organisations with a stake in the outcome of the universities' work. Their students continue to be mostly well-to-do young people aiming for a higher career; be that administrative, educational, theological, medical, legal, or academic. Their organisation in many places still revolves around the core concept of a group of professors, each in charge of their own research group (with attached students), and collectively in charge of the whole corporation. Other things too: the teaching forms of lectures and seminaries, the international community of university scholars, all that hasn't really changed in the last 1000 years. Book suggestion: James Hannam, "God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science", is a good popular introduction into scholarship in the Middle Ages, and specifically talks about the rise of the university in this period. (https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundations-Science/dp/1848311508/ https://www.amazon.com/Gods-Philosophers-Medieval-Foundation...)

klmr 8y ago
> First of all, universities are not per se linked to the scientific method as we understand it nowadays. Yes, that’s kind of my point: The introduction of the scientific method fundamentally changed research, and Universities as institutions. In fact, this dramatic change really cannot be overstated. Your comment appears to underestimate its importance. > Also, assuming that the scientific method is the only valid way to achieve knowledge completely ignores almost everything that is not a natural science. Again, kind of my point. It’s not the only valid way (though it’s the best general way we’ve discovered so far, and there are reasons to assume that it the best possible general way; and, importantly, it’s not restricted to natural science). (I forgot to say, thanks for the book recommendation. I’ll check it out.)
- veddox 8y ago
  > Yes, that’s kind of my point: The introduction of the scientific method fundamentally changed research, and Universities as institutions. Hm, perhaps I misunderstood you? I fully agree that the rise of the scientific method around the time of Newton "fundamentally changed research". But I don't see how it had the same kind of impact on the university as an institution of higher learning and research. The structure of groups of scholars doing research (whatever method they used) didn't much change, after all - or am I wrong? If I am wrong, could you give some details, please? If you're interested, I reviewed the book here: https://terranostra.one/posts/Gods-Philosophers.html https://terranostra.one/posts/Gods-Philosophers.html (Though I didn't pay particular attention to the role of the universities in the review).
Izkata 8y ago
> Their students continue to be mostly well-to-do young people aiming for a higher career; be that administrative, educational, theological, medical, legal, or academic. That's very high-sounding, but at least in the US it's mostly just seen by huge swaths of high school students as High School Part II; the natural next step before getting a job.