Reliable knowledge

By -


"They served as a passage between Montaigne's world, a world of belief and misplaced conviction, and our world, the world of reliable and effective knowledge." -- David Wootton, The Invention of Science, p. 565

This is an astounding contention: before science, human beings had no "reliable knowledge"! Our ancestors weren't sure whether planting seeds or stones would grow wheat. When they went to hunt deer, they didn't know if they should put arrowheads or fur on the end of their arrows. If they were thirsty, they were uncertain if they should ingest water or sand. When freezing, sometimes they put on furs, but other times they laid down naked in the snow: who knew which would work?

In our world of "reliable knowledge," how is it that a man as smart as Wootton can believe such rubbish?

He does provide examples of extremely fanciful beliefs our forebears held, for example, that garlic negates the power of magnets. But, as Wootton himself notes, before the compass, magnets were rarely encountered and of no practical import. To place this in perspective, for people before 1400 or so, magnets were like conservatives are to Park Slope progressives today: they have heard rumors that such things exist, but they never have and never expect to encounter them. Thus, if you go to a wine party in Park Slope and inform the guests that conservatives teach their children to shoot by age four, so that they can pick off women entering abortion clinics, your audience will nod in appreciation of your exotic knowledge.

Comments

  1. David Wootton10:20 AM

    I do not say "before science, human beings had no 'reliable knowledge'" -- that's your gloss on what I do say. The quote you give from p. 565 follows on an extended discussion on pp. 558-560. e.g. "What matters for present purposes is Montaigne’s rejection not of the practical knowledge, of wine-making and bread-baking, of his day, but of the learned knowledge, of medicine, geography, astronomy. Montaigne called these various branches of knowledge ‘sciences’. Montaigne’s scepticism, when applied to the sciences of the times, was entirely justified: for there is not a single natural philosophical principle taught in the universities in 1580 that a student in the sciences would still learn today. Montaigne’s arguments against religious belief and against conventional moral certainties are still as sharp as ever they were; but his arguments against the sciences of his day have no purchase against the sciences of our day. Science is now something utterly different from what it was then." If you look at the text you will see that I offer not only wine-making and bread-making as examples, but also navigation and mathematics. In context it should have been clear that I was discussing scientific or natural philosophical knowledge, i.e. theory-based knowledge, not practical knowledge of the sort you have in mind -- and if it wasn't that's unfortunate, and now I have seen how the passage can be misread I would obviously rephrase it. In answer to your question: How can I believe such rubbish? Obviously I don't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:04 PM

      Thanks for the comment: I will review that section and see if it changes my opinion of the later passage.

      Delete
    2. gcallah11:06 PM

      "I do not say "before science, human beings had no 'reliable knowledge'" -- that's your gloss on what I do say."
      But it isn't un unreasonable interpretation: Montaigne's was a "world" consisting of belief and misplaced conviction. But again, I will review the earlier passage.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more