If this were true then how could we be wrong about anything? I mean, I see the really basic cases- knowledge that there's a tree over there happens because the sun and the tree conspire together to do something to our eyes via physics. But to think (with the same conviction) that there's a tree over there when in fact there is not seems to require an additional step.
No, physics is to limiting. Physics is simple(ish), it comes from and revolves around simple applications. Chemistry is the next level of physics, the interacting of two atoms ('n stuff). We get most of this, but there is still aspects of chemistry we are just learning about. The next level is biology, and while we have some of the basics thought out, we have a hell of a lot to learn. Knowledge of a person is like physics, we can attempt to pretend we know it all. Knowledge of a community/civilization going back longer than a singular human can remember, but still manages to help current applications is past biology in understanding.
I think that he meant that the principles are the same as physics, which they are assuming you get them right. Once one understands physics properly, everything falls into the same basic understanding. Of course one must get them right in the first place to know that.
Oh, I agree. He was making an analogy. It fails because physics are too simple, which feels odd to say. Knowledge is not simple. Knowledge cannot be “right,” ever.
What do we truly know, that constitutes our knowledge, the certainty of our ego. There is a necessity in knowledge that could indeed easily be translated to the certainty of science.
I guess I don’t.