|
|
|
|
|
by qayxc
939 days ago
|
|
I wouldn't think so. The difference is that in the past 200 years we've used actual experiments to confirm or falsify our models. There's a stark difference between coming up with an an hypothesis and just roll with it and scrutinising a hypothesis by conducting experiments and tests. |
|
Previous forms of intellectual inquiry had experiments and tests too. Previous thinkers evaluated their hypotheses against evidence in an effort to approach the truth.
But their epistemic (and ontological) foundations were radically different to ours. And those foundations (that inform what we define as “true”) have shifted profoundly throughout history. And I think it’d be hubris to look at that, as a fish swimming in the proverbial water, and say “yes, but our assumptions are actually true for real this time.”
If you’re interested in this stuff and haven’t read it already I’d recommend The Order of Things by Michel Foucault. There are questions about his scholarship (do all the sources he cites say the things he says they say??) but if you read his work with an open mind, I think you’d agree those kind of criticisms are missing the point.