3 ms·
> 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
by 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).