William of Ockham, In Libros Sententiarum (circa 1317)
As for the claim that there are two kinds of science, one of which proceeds from principles that are known per se by the light of a higher science, I reply that even though this is true of a subordinate science, still, no given individual ever has evident knowledge of the relevant conclusions unless he knows them either through experience or through premises that he has evident cognition of. Hence, it is absurd to claim that I have scientific knowledge with respect to this or that conclusion by reason of the fact that you know principles which I accept on faith because you tell them to me. And, in the same way, it is silly to claim that I have scientific knowledge of the conclusions of theology by reason of the fact that God knows principles which I accept on faith because he reveals them.
posted by Phila @ 3:22 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Speechless,
Can't remember where the quote came from, sorry. It may've been in the "Cambridge Companion to Ockham"...I'll dig around and get back to you.
DPR, read Ockham's final sentence again. He's pretty much saying the same thing you are.
The question regarding science is what does it mean for the man on the street to "know" something that's been represented to him by science? Often, not much. And what happens when representation trumps truth? We see it all the time in politics, and yet we have some persistent idea that science - alone of all truth - isn't similarly corruptible. Science never proved that Jews, or blacks, or women were biologically inferior, but that'd be cold comfort to a good many of the victims of people who said it had.
Post a Comment
<< Home