6 ms·

We need priests scientists who speak Latin mathematics to interpret what truth really is because none of the rest of us have been trained. EDIT: I thou

We need ~~priests~~ scientists who speak ~~Latin~~ mathematics to interpret what truth really is because none of the rest of us have been trained. EDIT: I thought HN used markdown for comments, but I guess not. The double tilde is strikethrough in markdown.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
>We need ~~priests~~ scientists who speak ~~Latin~~ mathematics to interpret what truth really is because none of the rest of us have been trained No, we don't. Most people don't really need to know advanced physics. It's not like the knowledge will save you from eternal suffering, it's just interesting to some even if they have a shitty grasp on it all. We need educated teachers to train engineers so they can use the "truth" to develop new technology.
- prometheus76 4y ago
  Most people don't need to know advanced physics. We just need to follow the science, right? We can trust them because they are authorities with special training!
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    I follow them by using my phone to type this message to you wherever you are in the world minutes after reading your message. I don't understand how most of the parts work to send this message, but I know that there are many scientific principles involved I could learn. I don't need blind faith in them. And they aren't hiding the information from me, I'm too lazy to spend the time necessary to learn it.
roywiggins 4y ago
I've taken math courses that were beyond me. This stuff is actually difficult, in ways that are probably irreducible. Once you get your head round a new mathematical tool though, it opens up others. But without that base understanding, that stuff would be incomprehensible. You can't jump over building understanding of the complicated underlying metaphors first. It's like first encountering, say, computer programming. Until you've got the fundamental tools of loops, conditions, and so on, the whole thing can feel like incomprehensible magic. And that's a system that was designed by humans to be more-or-less comprehensible. The universe doesn't have to be!
- prometheus76 4y ago
  This is the same reasoning that Roman Catholics use to justify priests that know Latin and have a Ph.D. in Philosophy (specializing in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas). "Theology is actually difficult in ways that are probably irreducible." My only point is that science didn't destroy religion. It just changed the titles of the priests (scientists), the priesthood (peer reviewed journals), and the holy books (Principia, etc.). The same claims to special knowledge and authority remain intact.
  - roywiggins 4y ago
    Okay, let's go back to before science. Your circa 1000AD village blacksmith has special knowledge and authority about handling metals that you don't, and he probably can't explain it to you in an afternoon. That doesn't make him like a member of a priesthood, he's someone with specialized knowledge that could train you, but it would take a while and you'd probably have to pay him for his time. He'd similarly dismiss uninformed speculation about how he could do his job better, because he's trained in it and you aren't. There are lots of domains like this that are much older than science and older than the Catholic Church. If anything, systems like the Church are like guild systems, rather than guilds being like priesthoods. Science certainly is a bit like guild systems of old- lots of specialized jargon and training, mentorship, internal hierarchies, etc. But that didn't come from the Church, that's just the stuff that seems to spring up around specializations.
  - dredmorbius 4y ago
    This may reflect the social nature of science and religion. What it fails to reflect, however, is that religion is fundamentally rooted in revelation or inspiration (further conveyed, transmitted, and applied through authority), whilst science is based on observation and empirical evidence, and based on experimental validity rather than authority. Neither is of course a pure instantiation of these general descriptions, and the structure of scientific institutions, education, and accreditation is of course strongly influenced by religion (with the University itself serving as a training vehicle for both). Latin was adopted by the priesthood largely for historical reasons (the Roman Catholic Church originated in Latin-speaking Rome), and technical ones: books were ruinously expensive and it was far more practical to bring priests and scholars to the text, by teaching them to read and write Latin, than the text to the priests in the vernacular, at least until Gutenberg and Luther. Maths is used in the sciences for the reason that it efficiently, accurately, and usefully communicates quantitative relationships and predictions. Where Latin emerged externally and was adopted by the Church, much modern scientific maths was created in the service of science, with the highly notable case of Newton (and Leibnitz) inventing calculus in the service of physics coming to mind. The parallels you note ... seem less useful and significant in this light.

We need ~~priests~~ scientists who speak ~~Latin~~ mathematics to interpret what truth really is because none of the rest of us have been trained. EDIT: I thou

boomboomsubban 4y ago

>We need ~~priests~~ scientists who speak ~~Latin~~ mathematics to interpret what truth really is because none of the rest of us have been trained No, we don't. Most people don't really need to know advanced physics. It's not like the knowledge will save you from eternal suffering, it's just interesting to some even if they have a shitty grasp on it all. We need educated teachers to train engineers so they can use the "truth" to develop new technology.

prometheus76 4y ago
Most people don't need to know advanced physics. We just need to follow the science, right? We can trust them because they are authorities with special training!
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  I follow them by using my phone to type this message to you wherever you are in the world minutes after reading your message. I don't understand how most of the parts work to send this message, but I know that there are many scientific principles involved I could learn. I don't need blind faith in them. And they aren't hiding the information from me, I'm too lazy to spend the time necessary to learn it.

roywiggins 4y ago

I've taken math courses that were beyond me. This stuff is actually difficult, in ways that are probably irreducible. Once you get your head round a new mathematical tool though, it opens up others. But without that base understanding, that stuff would be incomprehensible. You can't jump over building understanding of the complicated underlying metaphors first. It's like first encountering, say, computer programming. Until you've got the fundamental tools of loops, conditions, and so on, the whole thing can feel like incomprehensible magic. And that's a system that was designed by humans to be more-or-less comprehensible. The universe doesn't have to be!

prometheus76 4y ago
This is the same reasoning that Roman Catholics use to justify priests that know Latin and have a Ph.D. in Philosophy (specializing in Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas). "Theology is actually difficult in ways that are probably irreducible." My only point is that science didn't destroy religion. It just changed the titles of the priests (scientists), the priesthood (peer reviewed journals), and the holy books (Principia, etc.). The same claims to special knowledge and authority remain intact.
- roywiggins 4y ago
  Okay, let's go back to before science. Your circa 1000AD village blacksmith has special knowledge and authority about handling metals that you don't, and he probably can't explain it to you in an afternoon. That doesn't make him like a member of a priesthood, he's someone with specialized knowledge that could train you, but it would take a while and you'd probably have to pay him for his time. He'd similarly dismiss uninformed speculation about how he could do his job better, because he's trained in it and you aren't. There are lots of domains like this that are much older than science and older than the Catholic Church. If anything, systems like the Church are like guild systems, rather than guilds being like priesthoods. Science certainly is a bit like guild systems of old- lots of specialized jargon and training, mentorship, internal hierarchies, etc. But that didn't come from the Church, that's just the stuff that seems to spring up around specializations.
- dredmorbius 4y ago
  This may reflect the social nature of science and religion. What it fails to reflect, however, is that religion is fundamentally rooted in revelation or inspiration (further conveyed, transmitted, and applied through authority), whilst science is based on observation and empirical evidence, and based on experimental validity rather than authority. Neither is of course a pure instantiation of these general descriptions, and the structure of scientific institutions, education, and accreditation is of course strongly influenced by religion (with the University itself serving as a training vehicle for both). Latin was adopted by the priesthood largely for historical reasons (the Roman Catholic Church originated in Latin-speaking Rome), and technical ones: books were ruinously expensive and it was far more practical to bring priests and scholars to the text, by teaching them to read and write Latin, than the text to the priests in the vernacular, at least until Gutenberg and Luther. Maths is used in the sciences for the reason that it efficiently, accurately, and usefully communicates quantitative relationships and predictions. Where Latin emerged externally and was adopted by the Church, much modern scientific maths was created in the service of science, with the highly notable case of Newton (and Leibnitz) inventing calculus in the service of physics coming to mind. The parallels you note ... seem less useful and significant in this light.