Talk:Scientia potentia est

Comment

Should this article not read "Scientia potestas est" ? That is the Bacon quote as listed in Wikiquote. Just because it rhymes doesn't mean its right.

I have seen both also. I don't know, but this way seems to be more common. Reywas92^Talk 00:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Then should we make a redirect? bibliomaniac15 01:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sir Francis Bacon appears to have confused a constituent necessary for power for power itself.

Knowledge does not confer power of itself, unless you can put that knowledge to work. In business, for instance, unless you have the authority to be able to use knowledge, there is no power. If you tell someone else with authority, the power is their's not yours. It is possible to withhold information so disempowering but this does not mean you have power.

This distinction is not easy for many used to the assumption that Bacon held, that the authority was given.

A more accurate expression could be: Knowledge with authority permits the exercise of power 88.212.172.151 19:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The Librarian in Warhammer 40000: Dawn of War (That is, the computer game) says "Knowledge is power, hide it well." I wonder if it would be worthwhile to include this here.

This article reads as if the phrase is wrongfully attributed to Bacon. As much as I love Hobbes, Francis Bacon did write "Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est" in his Meditationes sacrae (1597), which was translated one year later to English, where it reads "For knowledge itself is power". That should definitely be in the article! Berlioz--93.203.61.25 (talk) 10:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I came across a similar quote in St Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologiae I, q. 32, a. 3, ad. 2, that is, part one, question 32, article 3, answer to second objection. The exact quote is 'licet dicamus quod scientia sit potentia' translated as something like, 'although we would say that knowledge is power'. The context and grammar of this phrase seem to suggest that it was a well known saying, at least among academics, of the time (it was written about 1265).

Title Change

The current title 'Scientia Potentia Est' is appropriate for the topic at hand however it could be confusing for readers who want to find out about 'knowledge is power'. The latin version of the quote is elegant but potentially distracting. A more proper title would probably just be 'Knowledge is Power' or if you want to keep the latin 'Scientia Potentia Est (knowledge is power)". JohnMField (talk) 23:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@JohnMField Agreed. The Wikipedia entry 'Knowledge is Power' seems to relate only to a video game, rather than to this important philosophical concept.

The subtitle is also odd. In what way is this 'claimed to mean' what it means? Why 'claimed'? And what distinction is being made between 'knowledge' and 'organized knowledge'? 86.49.71.210 (talk) 06:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Admin request

Will an admin please move this page to its most common phrasing knowledge is power. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at its category, there are many other Latin titled articles. Besides, Knowledge is Power redirects here. Reywas92^{TalkReview me} 14:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

..but we are supposed to use most common usage and knowledge. To help people find the article and understand what it is about at a glance. Each article is stand-alone on Wikipedia, there is no hierarchy. It can still be part of the Latin phrase category with a re-direct. Article titles are just symbolic placeholders for purposes of convenience. Fothergill Volkensniff IV (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources and Further reading

Could someone please sort out what material has been used to source the article and which are hi simply relevant material? Thanks, ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong context

I don't know who wrote this article but as far as I see this, the original quote seen out of context. In the Original he writes about the power of God.

The original says

" ... limits of the knowledge of God then of his power, or rather of that part of Gods power (for knowledge it selfe is a power whereby hee knoweth) then of that by which he ... "

--Stephan.zehrer (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

How is "scientia potentia est" pronounced? It isn't much help knowing the Latin if you don't know how to say it. My guess from looking at it would be SCI-EN-SHU PO-TEN-SHU ESS, but that could be wildly inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.84.204 (talk) 00:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My high school Latin teacher would have pronounced it see-EN-sya po-TEN-sya est I'm no linguist, but I believe that would be the ecclesiastical Latin pronunciation. The classical Latin pronunciation may differ slightly. IrishCowboy (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

In Classical Latin, c and t are always hard. Stress goes on the next-to-last syllable (the penult), unless it's short, in which case the stress is on the syllable before that (the antepenult). The pronuciation would be ski-EN-ti-ah po-TEN-ti-ah EST, with the i's pronounced as in English hit and the o in potentia pronouced as in English on. - Cal Engime (talk) 17:53, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Weird Citation

When the author(s) cited a source for a quote they included the entire url. Can someone please strike that? It looks weird. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briwivell (talk • contribs) 00:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another possible meaning

http://mytwyyearbook.tripod.com/cutlip.html

"And that's when I realized, knowledge was power. All of a sudden, Christmas had come early. It was wonderful."

Here, the phrase is just a euphemism for blackmail.--80.141.15.56 (talk) 12:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Scientia potentia est. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051221112917/http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=944 to http://www.universitybusiness.com/page.cfm?p=944

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Antiquated translation of Hobbes' version of the quote

The translation given for the quote by Hobbes is an old one which is, at best, antiquated and frankly looks gibberish. "The sciences are small powers; because not eminent, and therefore, not acknowledged in any man; nor are at all, but in a few, and in them, but of a few things. For science is of that nature, as none can understand it to be, but such as in a good measure have attained it." Really? Does anyone understand anything? Not to mention that some passages seem flat out mistranslated (not eminent? nor are at all?). Does anyone know of a better, more recent, more readily understandable translation?

It should go something like this: Scientia (=science, knowledge) potentia (=power) est (=is) --> = "Science / knowledge is (a form of) power", sed (=but) parva (=small (f), referring to power) --> = "but a small one"; quia (=because) scientia (=science) egregia (=eminent) rara (=rare (f), referring to science) est (=is) --> ="because eminent science is rare", nec (=and not) proinde (=therefore) apparens (=apparent) nisi (= if not) paucissimis (=(in) very few (abl)) --> ="and therefore it isn't apparent but in very few (people)", et (=and) in (=in) paucis (=few) rebus (=things, matters) --> ="and in few matters". Scientiae (=to science) enim (=indeed) ea (=this) natura (=nature) est (=is) --> "this nature indeed is to science", in other words "Science is indeed of that nature", ut (=such as) esse (=to be) intelligi (=to be understood) non (not) possit (can) --> "such as it cannot be understood to be (present)", in other words, "such as one cannot understand it to be there", or better "such as one cannot recognize it", nisi (=if not) ab (=by) illis (=those) qui (=who) sunt (=are) scientia (=(by) science (abl)) praediti (endowed (with)) --> "but by those who are endowed with science" -- in other words, "if one is not (already) endowed with it (science)". Therefore: "Knowledge is a form of power, but a small one; for eminent knowledge is rare, and therefore it isn't apparent but in very few people, and in few matters. Knowledge is indeed of such a nature that one cannot recognize it, if one isn't already endowed with it." In other words, one has to be knowledgeable to recognize other people's knowledge and be influenced by it, therefore knowledge won't give one much power if one is surrounded by ignorants; which makes knowledge not very powerful, since ignorants, in the author's view, are the overwhelming majority of people (as knowledgeable people are "very few").

(Note that in Latin, scientia means both knowledge and science, so both ways to translate it are probably ok, but when it means science it's normally in the sense of a given subject (as in "natural sciences"), so in this context I think it's probably better to translate it as "knowledge", but I might be wrong.) KwentiTwinkel (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)