4 ms·

Science is an approach to epistemology. My conjecture is that all truths must be experienced. This aligns with the notion of “nullius in verba”, the original m

Science is an approach to epistemology. My conjecture is that all truths must be experienced. This aligns with the notion of “nullius in verba”, the original motto of the Royal Society, arguably the birthplace of modern science. Science takes place in a laboratory. Whether or not ink on a page is true depends on nothing other than replicating the methods for oneself. That the current environment is for printing ink on paper and calling it a day tells me that we’ve moved on from science as an epistemological solution to the notion of truth and regressed to an era of truth emanating from privileged authorities.

zemvpferreira 4y ago
Surely this is also a consequence of knowledge expansion? Up to a certain year some people could credibly be said to know everything scientific. There just wasn't much of it. I couldn't imagine verifying with my own eyes even a small subset of one field today. I doubt there's one person alive who's seen 5% of, say, all metallurgy with their own eyes. How would we ever progress without a change in method from observation to belief?
- williamcotton 4y ago
  My point is that we’re probably no longer in what future historians will consider the scientific era. “Believe in science” would be an incoherent statement to Newton.
  - krapp 4y ago
    >“Believe in science” would be an incoherent statement to Newton. It wouldn't, because Newton considered himself primarily an alchemist and philosopher, and viewed all of his "scientific" endeavors as a means to the end of understanding God through understanding Creation.
    - williamcotton 4y ago
      Really, the guy who was president of a club whose motto is “take no one’s word for it” would be fine with just like, taking someone’s word for it?
      - krapp 4y ago
        If that "someone" was the Bible, yes. Apart from his occult work (which like most Western magic was done in a heretical Christian context) he published numerous works on Biblical literalism and prophecy. That Newton considered his work primarily an expression of his religious views isn't exactly a secret. You made the mistake of reaching too far back in time, searching for an example of someone who should have been aghast at the premise of applying faith to science, and found someone for whom they were one and the same. Although he did reject a lot of the orthodox views of the church, he certainly didn't reject religion outright for its lack of verifiability.
        williamcotton 4y ago
        You’ve taken the discussion into a discussion about religion and not just about “natural philosophy”, which is fine, but not what anyone is talking about with “believe in science”. If we want to talk about religion and taking no one’s word for it you’ve already started us in this direction by pointing out his rejection of church orthodoxy, which is basically the extreme end of Protestant practice. If you believe that God wrote the Bible and that the church is made up of corrupt men and that only your personal understanding of the word of God is the path towards the True, well, you’re completely at odds with the epistemology of the Catholic Church with regards to religion and very much primed to take the same approach of a personal relationship with God and his word to a personal relationship with natural philosophy.

zemvpferreira 4y ago

Surely this is also a consequence of knowledge expansion? Up to a certain year some people could credibly be said to know everything scientific. There just wasn't much of it. I couldn't imagine verifying with my own eyes even a small subset of one field today. I doubt there's one person alive who's seen 5% of, say, all metallurgy with their own eyes. How would we ever progress without a change in method from observation to belief?

williamcotton 4y ago
My point is that we’re probably no longer in what future historians will consider the scientific era. “Believe in science” would be an incoherent statement to Newton.
- krapp 4y ago
  >“Believe in science” would be an incoherent statement to Newton. It wouldn't, because Newton considered himself primarily an alchemist and philosopher, and viewed all of his "scientific" endeavors as a means to the end of understanding God through understanding Creation.
  - williamcotton 4y ago
    Really, the guy who was president of a club whose motto is “take no one’s word for it” would be fine with just like, taking someone’s word for it?
    - krapp 4y ago
      If that "someone" was the Bible, yes. Apart from his occult work (which like most Western magic was done in a heretical Christian context) he published numerous works on Biblical literalism and prophecy. That Newton considered his work primarily an expression of his religious views isn't exactly a secret. You made the mistake of reaching too far back in time, searching for an example of someone who should have been aghast at the premise of applying faith to science, and found someone for whom they were one and the same. Although he did reject a lot of the orthodox views of the church, he certainly didn't reject religion outright for its lack of verifiability.
      - williamcotton 4y ago
        You’ve taken the discussion into a discussion about religion and not just about “natural philosophy”, which is fine, but not what anyone is talking about with “believe in science”. If we want to talk about religion and taking no one’s word for it you’ve already started us in this direction by pointing out his rejection of church orthodoxy, which is basically the extreme end of Protestant practice. If you believe that God wrote the Bible and that the church is made up of corrupt men and that only your personal understanding of the word of God is the path towards the True, well, you’re completely at odds with the epistemology of the Catholic Church with regards to religion and very much primed to take the same approach of a personal relationship with God and his word to a personal relationship with natural philosophy.