Reply #258: Continuum. Any word with two U's in a row is okay in my book. [View All]

[Orrex]

If we could agree that there is a continuum of knowledge, we might also grasp that there is a range of quality and credibility in any discipline, rather than throw out entire disciplines and "insist" that others deserve no respect at all.

That sounds reasonable, as long as we bear in mind that there's a continuum of appropriate respect to be paid, too. That is, a system shown to have considerable verifiable reference to observed reality should be granted greater respect than a system that can't be verified within any certainty. That latter system might be worthy of respect for its historical significance or because it's a step on the path to understanding, but that seems greatly different to me from a system respected for its specific explanatory value, for example.

For example, no test to date has demonstrated the validity of astrology as a method of diviniation, outside of anecdotal testimony and "hits" whose frequency is no better than random chance. In contrast, every modern scientific theory is subjected to excruciating review and is only accepted after being verified independently and repeatedly. For this reason science should be afforded greater respect as a tool of understanding than should astrology.

Your points are well taken, but that is not my "reasoning," that is your interpretation of the relevance (or not) of those "foundations" to the form science now has.

Fair enough. My hope was to show (not you, specifically, but our multitude of eager readers) an example of a system which, while useful in its day and a foundation of some modern system, has nonetheless fallen out of use for another reason. In this case, because systems of greater efficiency were developed subsequently, thereby eliminating the need for continued use of the foundational system.

A dogmatic deathgrip on anything is the antithesis of wisdom. That includes an arrogant, historically embedded scientific prejudice against most of what came before "The Enlightenment."

Well, sure. But modern science rejects many pre-Enlightment teachings simply because they've been shown not to work. I don't doubt that, among individuals, prejudice exists as you describe it, but science-as-a-whole places greater value on pragmatism than on personal prejudice.

Thank you for a thoughtful post.

Hey, every so often I get it right! :)