Science is perception

-Sylvan · #1 by **-Sylvan** » Jan 11, 2012 3:27 am

I came across a quote from Plato while browsing today, "Science is nothing but perception".

What is meant by this?
:scratch:

Mick · #2 by **Mick** » Jan 11, 2012 3:45 am

Can you source it?

Mick · #3 by **Mick** » Jan 11, 2012 3:48 am

perception is a lower grade of apprehension. True knowledge is that of the Forms, not that of the sensible world or those things which we can see with our senses. That said, I need to have the reference to be much good.

Darwinsbulldog · #4 by **Darwinsbulldog** » Jan 11, 2012 7:58 am

Nobody cares what a Greek said 2,400 years ago...science moves on.

UndercoverElephant · #5 by **UndercoverElephant** » Jan 11, 2012 10:07 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Nobody cares what a Greek said 2,400 years ago...science moves on.

I care what a Greek said 2,400 years ago. It doesn't have much/anything to do with what modern science says, but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting in its own right. Taken as a quote out of context, "science" could mean almost anything.

Matthew Shute · #6 by **Matthew Shute** » Jan 11, 2012 4:10 pm

-Sylvan wrote:I came across a quote from Plato while browsing today, "Science is nothing but perception".

What is meant by this?

I've looked around for this quote, but I can only find it as an isolated quote on websites such as brainyquote.com. I confess that I didn't recognise the quote, but it is attributed to Plato all over the internet - with no context provided. You should probably look around for a Plato scholar to explain the source and any context for this. On its own, it's underwhelming. It's a pity this wasn't an obscure Nietzsche quote - I could have asked Jerôme Serpenti for you and, maybe, passed on something more interesting.

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Nobody cares what a Greek said 2,400 years ago.

Bollocks, obviously.

orpheus · #7 by **orpheus** » Jan 11, 2012 6:31 pm

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:Nobody cares what a Greek said 2,400 years ago...science moves on.

I care what a Greek said 2,400 years ago. It doesn't have much/anything to do with what modern science says, but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting in its own right. Taken as a quote out of context, "science" could mean almost anything.

Agreed.

And to paraphrase Neal Stephenson, though the ancient Greeks got many things wrong, and were utter shitheads in many ways, they were also terrifyingly intelligent people, and it's a good idea to learn what they said.

Garm · #8 by **Garm** » Jan 11, 2012 6:37 pm

I think this is the source.

The Theaetetus (Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge. The framing of the dialogue begins when Euclides tells his friend Terpsion that he had written a book many years ago based on what Socrates had told him of a conversation he'd had with Theaetetus when Theaetetus was quite a young man. (Euclides also notes that he'd had to go back to Socrates to ask some more questions about the speeches due to his spotty recollection of the account.)

Euclides is prompted to share his book when Terpsion wonders where he'd been: Euclides, who apparently can usually be found in the marketplace of Megara, was walking outside of the city and had happened upon Theaetetus being carried from Corinth to Athens with a case of dysentery and a minor war wound; Euclides remarks that Socrates had made some uncanny predictions about Theaetetus needing to rise to fame. Euclides' book is read aloud to the two men by a slave boy in the employ of Euclides.

In this dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three definitions of knowledge: knowledge as nothing but perception, knowledge as true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account. Each of these definitions is shown to be unsatisfactory. The conversation ends with Socrates' announcement that he has to go to court to answer to the charges that he has been corrupting the young and failing to worship Athenian Gods.

(CONTINUED)

Mick · #9 by **Mick** » Jan 11, 2012 7:13 pm

Garm wrote:I think this is the source.

The Theaetetus (Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge. The framing of the dialogue begins when Euclides tells his friend Terpsion that he had written a book many years ago based on what Socrates had told him of a conversation he'd had with Theaetetus when Theaetetus was quite a young man. (Euclides also notes that he'd had to go back to Socrates to ask some more questions about the speeches due to his spotty recollection of the account.)

Euclides is prompted to share his book when Terpsion wonders where he'd been: Euclides, who apparently can usually be found in the marketplace of Megara, was walking outside of the city and had happened upon Theaetetus being carried from Corinth to Athens with a case of dysentery and a minor war wound; Euclides remarks that Socrates had made some uncanny predictions about Theaetetus needing to rise to fame. Euclides' book is read aloud to the two men by a slave boy in the employ of Euclides.

In this dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three definitions of knowledge: knowledge as nothing but perception, knowledge as true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account. Each of these definitions is shown to be unsatisfactory. The conversation ends with Socrates' announcement that he has to go to court to answer to the charges that he has been corrupting the young and failing to worship Athenian Gods.

(CONTINUED)

Examine sections 151e-187a for the relevant parts.

It could be this, though the statement would be from Theaetetus rather than Socrates (who was the mouth of Plato in this dialogue). But notice here they're talking about knowledge rather than science. If we understand science to be knowledge of the sensible world, you could argue that this is applicable (though using it as a quotation would be hard to defend), though I don't think science was understood to be interchangeable with knowledge.

UndercoverElephant · **#10** by **UndercoverElephant** » Jan 11, 2012 8:14 pm

Mick wrote: But notice here they're talking about knowledge rather than science.

Agreed. This is about epistemology, rather than science as we know it today (either theoretical or practical.) "Science" in this context just means "knowledge."

Mick · **#11** by **Mick** » Jan 11, 2012 8:51 pm

That said, science would be a lower order of inquiry. The highest form of inquiry is not of the sensible world (the realm of change and whatnot) but of the intelligible world-the Forms. This is not something you can perceive, strictly speaking.

Darwinsbulldog · **#12** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Jan 12, 2012 2:45 am

UndercoverElephant wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:Nobody cares what a Greek said 2,400 years ago...science moves on.

I care what a Greek said 2,400 years ago. It doesn't have much/anything to do with what modern science says, but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting in its own right. Taken as a quote out of context, "science" could mean almost anything.

But I meant it in the context of the OP post. Plato was brilliant, but, as I said, folks have learned a little more since his day, methods are added etc. So why talk about how Plato viewed science if it is not the way it is done today?

Mick · **#13** by **Mick** » Jan 12, 2012 4:42 am

Because such methods wouldn't change his point about the divided line and the levels of knowledge.

Darwinsbulldog · **#14** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Jan 12, 2012 4:52 am

Mick wrote:Because such methods wouldn't change his point about the divided line and the levels of knowledge.

Oh really? Do you think most people have Plato's concept for the soul?

Mick · **#15** by **Mick** » Jan 12, 2012 4:59 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
Mick wrote:Because such methods wouldn't change his point about the divided line and the levels of knowledge.

Oh really? Do you think most people have Plato's concept for the soul?

That's not relevant to what I said. Today many philosophers are either Platonists or something like that in their ontology of abstract objects. They owe this to Plato. Divisions of knowledge is one owed to Plato.

SpeedOfSound · **#16** by **SpeedOfSound** » Jan 14, 2012 1:49 pm

-Sylvan wrote:I came across a quote from Plato while browsing today, "Science is nothing but perception".

What is meant by this?

The usual bullshit attempt at discounting science I am guessing.

zoon · **#17** by **zoon** » Jan 15, 2012 11:01 am

Mick wrote:
Garm wrote:I think this is the source.

The Theaetetus (Greek: Θεαίτητος) is one of Plato's dialogues concerning the nature of knowledge. The framing of the dialogue begins when Euclides tells his friend Terpsion that he had written a book many years ago based on what Socrates had told him of a conversation he'd had with Theaetetus when Theaetetus was quite a young man. (Euclides also notes that he'd had to go back to Socrates to ask some more questions about the speeches due to his spotty recollection of the account.)

Euclides is prompted to share his book when Terpsion wonders where he'd been: Euclides, who apparently can usually be found in the marketplace of Megara, was walking outside of the city and had happened upon Theaetetus being carried from Corinth to Athens with a case of dysentery and a minor war wound; Euclides remarks that Socrates had made some uncanny predictions about Theaetetus needing to rise to fame. Euclides' book is read aloud to the two men by a slave boy in the employ of Euclides.

In this dialogue, Socrates and Theaetetus discuss three definitions of knowledge: knowledge as nothing but perception, knowledge as true judgment, and, finally, knowledge as a true judgment with an account. Each of these definitions is shown to be unsatisfactory. The conversation ends with Socrates' announcement that he has to go to court to answer to the charges that he has been corrupting the young and failing to worship Athenian Gods.

(CONTINUED)

Examine sections 151e-187a for the relevant parts.

It could be this, though the statement would be from Theaetetus rather than Socrates (who was the mouth of Plato in this dialogue). But notice here they're talking about knowledge rather than science. If we understand science to be knowledge of the sensible world, you could argue that this is applicable (though using it as a quotation would be hard to defend), though I don't think science was understood to be interchangeable with knowledge.

As Garm points out, in the Theaetetus, Socrates (speaking for Plato) wants to discuss the nature of knowledge, and the young man Theaetetus puts forward the suggestion that perception is knowledge:

Plato (translated and with introduction by Jowett) wrote:THEAETETUS: At any rate, Socrates, after such an exhortation I should be ashamed of not trying to do my best. Now he who knows perceives what he
knows, and, as far as I can see at present, knowledge is perception.

SOCRATES: Bravely said, boy; that is the way in which you should express
your opinion. And now, let us examine together this conception of yours,
and see whether it is a true birth or a mere wind-egg:--You say that
knowledge is perception?

THEAETETUS: Yes.

SOCRATES: Well, you have delivered yourself of a very important doctrine
about knowledge; it is indeed the opinion of Protagoras, who has another
way of expressing it. Man, he says, is the measure of all things, of the
existence of things that are, and of the non-existence of things that
are not:--You have read him?

Socrates spends most of the dialogue tearing this suggestion apart (misrepresenting Protagoras on the way, according to Wikipedia), and finally asserts that perception "has no part in" either knowledge or science. "Science is nothing but perception" seems to have been exactly what Plato didn't think, whatever the precise meaning of "science".

Plato wrote:SOCRATES: And what name would you give to seeing, hearing, smelling,
being cold and being hot?

THEAETETUS: I should call all of them perceiving--what other name could
be given to them?

SOCRATES: Perception would be the collective name of them?

THEAETETUS: Certainly.

SOCRATES: Which, as we say, has no part in the attainment of truth any
more than of being?

THEAETETUS: Certainly not.

SOCRATES: And therefore not in science or knowledge?

THEAETETUS: No.

SOCRATES: Then perception, Theaetetus, can never be the same as
knowledge or science?

THEAETETUS: Clearly not, Socrates; and knowledge has now been most
distinctly proved to be different from perception.

SOCRATES: But the original aim of our discussion was to find out rather
what knowledge is than what it is not; at the same time we have made
some progress, for we no longer seek for knowledge in perception at all,
but in that other process, however called, in which the mind is alone
and engaged with being.

Positron · **#18** by **Positron** » Jan 24, 2012 12:01 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:
-Sylvan wrote:I came across a quote from Plato while browsing today, "Science is nothing but perception". What is meant by this?
The usual bullshit attempt at discounting science I am guessing.

I don't know why you should think so.

By rejecting the "science is perception" position and going with "mind alone" Socrates was backing the wrong horse.

Aristotle later showed that knowledge about the world could never come from pure reason and must begin with an inductive process on perceptions - thereby beginning the tradition we know of as empiricism, which is still the basis of science.

Of course Aristotle didn't get it all right either because he did not realise that science must not only begin with perception, but that any concepts inferred from perception must also be tested by perception.

SpeedOfSound · **#19** by **SpeedOfSound** » Jan 24, 2012 12:58 pm

Positron wrote:
SpeedOfSound wrote:
-Sylvan wrote:I came across a quote from Plato while browsing today, "Science is nothing but perception". What is meant by this?
The usual bullshit attempt at discounting science I am guessing.

I don't know why you should think so.

By rejecting the "science is perception" position and going with "mind alone" Socrates was backing the wrong horse.

Aristotle later showed that knowledge about the world could never come from pure reason and must begin with an inductive process on perceptions - thereby beginning the tradition we know of as empiricism, which is still the basis of science.

Of course Aristotle didn't get it all right either because he did not realise that science must not only begin with perception, but that any concepts inferred from perception must also be tested by perception.

Admitting the cross perceptive testing and reasoning to the mix is more accurate. Believe it or not there is a group of people that like to make it sound like science was just thought up in our heads and only appears to be what it appears to be.

Positron · **#20** by **Positron** » Jan 24, 2012 1:08 pm

SpeedOfSound wrote:Believe it or not there is a group of people that like to make it sound like science was just thought up in our heads and only appears to be what it appears to be.

Well of course strictly speaking science was all just thought up in our heads - but not the subject matter of science.