this was an interesting read. the author provokes us to consider two kinds of science, and so prompts us to think about the kinds of inquiry we want to develop in the world. i appreciate historical nuances and think managing the overall question of how we know what we think we know is absolutely crucial for humans with their cognitive biases and tendencies towards self-soothing interpretations.
i particularly enjoyed how the author managed to be so concise while also being so effective at delivering such an important message with so few words. I certainly aspire to blog like this.
i love these little shots of theory in the morning…
In this post I will be exploring and elucidating the claim that in the 16th Century the underpinning philosophy of science turned from being Aristotelian in nature to being Pythagorean. I will chiefly explore what it means to be “Aristotelian” or “Pythagorean” in approach, and I will go on to suggest some possible reasons why we can observe this shift.
At some point in the history of thought, all forms of enquiry were simply called philosophy. People who practised philosophy often wrote on a large number of topics, such as biology, optics and astronomy, along with musings on the nature of god. In the modern era, it would be very rare to come across someone who could write proficiently on such a diverse array of topics, and arguably this is down to advancements in science which have made each branch more specialist and rarefied.
In medieval times, Aristotle was held up as…
View original post 473 more words