Gary F., maybe i misread your original post. I was triggered by "and historically, there’s a lot of truth to that". Knee jerk reaction pushing an already open door...
Best Stefan Am 14. Juli 2016 15:47:42 MESZ, schrieb g...@gnusystems.ca: >Stefan, I would concur with everything you say here. “Revolt against >authority” as a founding myth of “modern science” is, to me, not a >hypothesis but an oversimplified story (all stories are simplified to >some degree). One can find traces of it in, for example, the “Cosmos” >television series, both the original with Carl Sagan and the more >recent one with Neil deGrasse Tyson. > > > >gary > > > >From: sb [mailto:peirc...@semiotikon.de] >Sent: 14-Jul-16 05:29 > > > > > >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on one side and the outdated antimodern on the other side.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 -- 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 .
