The dichotomy between authoritative and exploratory science is incredibly useful, especially when it comes to public policy. But as constraints on knowledge, only Popper’s falsifiability and Gödel’s incompleteness trump it.
> “Nullius in verba” made some sense in 1660, before much science was settled and when the enterprise was small enough that most natural philosophers could personally observe or replicate the experiments of the others. It came to make less sense as science itself succeeded, scaled up, and acquired intellectual authority. Perhaps a better answer to the question of scientific authority would have led science to take a different course.
To me “Nullius in verba” is the very essence of science, but it doesn’t mean I have to do every experiment myself and observe results with my own eyes. To me the meaning is very clearly captured by a famous Feynman quote: “ Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, ‘Is it reasonable?’”. It’s about thinking for yourself.
2 comments
[ 350 ms ] story [ 1184 ms ] threadTo me “Nullius in verba” is the very essence of science, but it doesn’t mean I have to do every experiment myself and observe results with my own eyes. To me the meaning is very clearly captured by a famous Feynman quote: “ Have no respect whatsoever for authority; forget who said it and instead look what he starts with, where he ends up, and ask yourself, ‘Is it reasonable?’”. It’s about thinking for yourself.