Gary F., yes i agree, Peirce reading of the history of science is based on the idea that we are standing on shoulders of giants.
But i doubt the revolt against authority hypothesis. Take for example Galileo, he never revolted against the church. He was deeply rooted in the tradition of christian natural philosophy. And the catholic church of the middle ages was quite tolerant towards natural philosophy. Galileo referred to this tolerant tradition in his defense. The intolerance against natural philosophy was something new and was a product of the church internal war between jesuits and dominicans. In this view Galileos ideas were the battle field but not the source of the battle. Or take Newton as another example. Did he revolt against tradition? No, he was deeply rooted in the hermetic tradition and most of his work is dedidicated to alchemy. The close relation between his work on gravity and his alchemical work has been shown by history of science. Newton as an alchemist shows that there was already a tradition of experimenting. Lots of it esoteric, but also proto-scientific or already serious chemistry. And were Galileos instruments constructed without experimenting? Also many of the great scientist wanted their discoveries in accordance with their christian faith: Galileo, Newton, later Darwin and also Peirce did so. Yes, the whole world view changed in the 16th century, but it is not that easy like the modern revolutionaries that rebell against authority on one side and the outdated antimodern on the other side. Knowledge production in that time was a complex web of social relations in which a complex set of ideas circulated. I know your not making it that simple (your comment about the source of the hypothesis) but many people in science still believe in the founding myth. Putting the said above in the context of the original exchange between Olga, John and Gary my point is that when we look closer the sharp line between science and non-science gets blurred. I think it is important to keep the difference between the organizational borders of the sociological phenomenon science, the individual scientific skills (scientific craftsmanship like statistics, experiments etc.) and the scientifc ethos in mind. In my opinion the ethos is the most important whether someone is within an scientific organization and has scientific skills or not, because the latter are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions. Best Stefan Am 13. Juli 2016 18:18:00 MESZ, schrieb g...@gnusystems.ca: >Stefan, > > > >I think the “founding myth of modern science” is that it led a revolt >against established authority by bringing experiential observation of >nature into the loop; and historically, there’s a lot of truth to that. >But science in the Peircean sense was always a loop, going back to >Aristotle at least (who was a better observer than most Aristotelians >were in the 15th-16th centuries). Also, many of the hypotheses which >the early moderns tried to test were indeed derived from prior sources, >so they certainly didn’t “start from scratch” in that sense either. And >I’d concur with your observations about the current “sociological >phenomenon” of “science.” > > > >Gary f. > > > >From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] >Sent: 12-Jul-16 16:22 > > > > > >Gary, John, Olga, > >what is this thing "science" you are talking about? Do you mean the >sociological phenomen or the idea of science? I think these two are a >bit mixed up in your exchange. When i look at science as a sociological >phenomenen i must say i have seen much hedonism, betrayal, lying, >irrationality and unreasonableness in this business. In contrast i have >seen farmers, nurses, carpenters, in short the so called ordinary man >in the street with quite a scientific attitude. And i think it is this >attitude, that makes science. It's the attitude beyond fallibilism, >that people are open to being proven false. Or even more the openess of >people to see things from an different angle which is beyond the >true/false binary. It's also the attitude to speak the truth. Speak the >truth to power or a friend and the willingness to risk something in so >doing. > >Thoreau gave a short description of this ethos: "It takes two to speak >the truth - one to speak and another to hear". Basically, that is the >basis of the relation of Grapheus and the Graphist in the EG. > >But all the techniques, methods, statistics etc. are almost decorative >accessory in contrast to the ethos. It can be found inside and outside >the sociological phenomenon "science". It also existed long before >modern science. It is one of the founding myths of modern science that >it started from scratch. But where did the knowledge of the scientific >revolution come from? It came from philosophy, religion, alchemy, >astrology etc. > >All the best >Stefan -- Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
