3 ms·

I think with the success of systematic scientific understandings, we look past other, previous ways of knowing things. Medicines (eg antibiotic containing "wit

I think with the success of systematic scientific understandings, we look past other, previous ways of knowing things. Medicines (eg antibiotic containing "witches brews," pain & fever relieving tree bark, etc.) existed prior to scientific medicine. People arrived at this knowledge somehow. Ritualized copying is how knowledge was transferred, not attained. A lot of knowledge of complex processes to utile nutritional and medicinal resources probably predates our species... The knoweldge was possibly attained by means that we don't understand anymore. In any case, compound bows are bows. Bows were invented, reinvented and refined, & spread many times. The composite bow (made of wood, horn & sinew) is a complex design using ancient materials, each with different properties. Even the simplest wooden bows, if important, usually embed quite a lot of knowledge about material selection, treatment, and construction. High powered crossbows and such utilizing spring steel were the last "prescientific" burst of innovation, taking advantage of newly abundant materials. It's not really all that different from the modern incarnation of that particular type of machine. When that guy was doing it in the 1960s, we know how he invented. He used knowledge of physics to calculate force, stored energy and designed for specific optimization. What was the Scythian bowmaker doing as he selected glue to attache sinew to his radical new bow design?

chousuke 7y ago
I don't think there was any special "way of attaining knowledge" prior to science; it's always been, and still is, trial and error. Science is just the formalized and most advanced version of the same thing humans have always done to discover new things.
- dalbasal 7y ago
  Science does a lot of trial and error, but I wouldn't say that it's "not a special process."
  - chousuke 7y ago
    it's a process, and thus far the only one that seems to work. It can't be very special (in the sense of "extraordinary") if it's what everyone who succeeds is doing. I usually see the phrase "ways to attain knowledge" in the context on anti-scientific woo, so it makes me a bit wary. Thus far I haven't seen a single "alternative" that holds water, but I've seen some that lead people to wrong conclusions, sometimes with dire consequences.
  - jerf 7y ago
    I think there is a special aspect to science, and the vast majority of the specialness is actually "Look for the reasons why you're wrong, instead of looking for why you're right." That is the major pre-science flub-up that was made. If I were thrust back in time to a receptive culture, that is the point I would make, not specific ones about p-values or peer review or an attempt to institute our exact journal process. We're really good at figuring out why we're right, even when we are patently wrong. It takes training to overcome that even partially, and before people take too many Science Triumphalism laps, I wouldn't rate us as being all that great at it today, either. Fortunately, you don't have to be perfect at it to obtain advantage. (This also merges well with the general Chesterton's Fence idea; instead of assuming that you're right in the act of tearing down the fence and finding all kinds of reasons why you're right, you need to seek the reason why you are wrong. No amount of piling up the reasons why it's OK to tear down the fence matters, because it only takes one solid reason why you shouldn't to tip the balance. This is mostly because, alas, benefit in general is often bounded and at a not-that-large value, but harm is not well-bounded. It's a lopsided distribution of value.)
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      There is indeed a special aspect to science - it's the scientific method, a systematic means to separate fact from baloney. A companion to that is the idea that the universe can be modeled. Rules that work for the model work for the universe. As obvious as that sounds to us, it is a revolutionary concept.

chousuke 7y ago

I don't think there was any special "way of attaining knowledge" prior to science; it's always been, and still is, trial and error. Science is just the formalized and most advanced version of the same thing humans have always done to discover new things.

dalbasal 7y ago
Science does a lot of trial and error, but I wouldn't say that it's "not a special process."
- chousuke 7y ago
  it's a process, and thus far the only one that seems to work. It can't be very special (in the sense of "extraordinary") if it's what everyone who succeeds is doing. I usually see the phrase "ways to attain knowledge" in the context on anti-scientific woo, so it makes me a bit wary. Thus far I haven't seen a single "alternative" that holds water, but I've seen some that lead people to wrong conclusions, sometimes with dire consequences.
- jerf 7y ago
  I think there is a special aspect to science, and the vast majority of the specialness is actually "Look for the reasons why you're wrong, instead of looking for why you're right." That is the major pre-science flub-up that was made. If I were thrust back in time to a receptive culture, that is the point I would make, not specific ones about p-values or peer review or an attempt to institute our exact journal process. We're really good at figuring out why we're right, even when we are patently wrong. It takes training to overcome that even partially, and before people take too many Science Triumphalism laps, I wouldn't rate us as being all that great at it today, either. Fortunately, you don't have to be perfect at it to obtain advantage. (This also merges well with the general Chesterton's Fence idea; instead of assuming that you're right in the act of tearing down the fence and finding all kinds of reasons why you're right, you need to seek the reason why you are wrong. No amount of piling up the reasons why it's OK to tear down the fence matters, because it only takes one solid reason why you shouldn't to tip the balance. This is mostly because, alas, benefit in general is often bounded and at a not-that-large value, but harm is not well-bounded. It's a lopsided distribution of value.)
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    There is indeed a special aspect to science - it's the scientific method, a systematic means to separate fact from baloney. A companion to that is the idea that the universe can be modeled. Rules that work for the model work for the universe. As obvious as that sounds to us, it is a revolutionary concept.