4 ms·

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 Aqui

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.

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.