Meaning: This quote by Stephen Jay Gould encapsulates the essence of scientific inquiry and the nature of facts within the realm of science. As a prominent paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and science historian, Gould was well-versed in the principles of scientific investigation and the crucial distinction between established facts and speculative possibilities.

When Gould states that in science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent," he is emphasizing the rigorous standard that scientific facts must meet. Unlike colloquial usage, where "fact" may refer to any assertion or claim, in the context of science, a fact is an observation or result that has been repeatedly tested, scrutinized, and validated through empirical evidence and experimentation. This implies that scientific facts are not immutable truths, but rather the most reliable and well-supported explanations based on the available data and knowledge at a given time.

Gould's assertion that it would be "perverse to withhold provisional assent" underscores the idea that scientific facts are subject to revision and refinement as new evidence emerges or as technologies and methodologies improve. This reflects the self-correcting nature of science, where established facts are open to scrutiny and potential modification in light of more comprehensive or accurate information. It also highlights the importance of maintaining a willingness to update our understanding based on the best available evidence, rather than clinging dogmatically to outdated or disproven notions.

The analogy Gould draws between the rising of apples and the teaching of physics further elucidates the distinction between established facts and speculative possibilities in science. By suggesting that the possibility of apples rising tomorrow does not merit equal time in physics classrooms, Gould is emphasizing the prioritization of well-established principles and empirical findings over unfounded conjectures or hypothetical scenarios. This underscores the principle of parsimony in scientific explanations, where simpler and more substantiated hypotheses are favored over complex or speculative ones in the absence of compelling evidence.

In essence, Gould's quote serves as a reminder of the critical importance of evidence-based reasoning and the stringent criteria that scientific facts must meet. It underscores the need for scientific claims to be anchored in robust empirical support, reproducibility, and consensus within the scientific community. Moreover, it highlights the dynamic and provisional nature of scientific knowledge, emphasizing that our understanding of the natural world is continually evolving in response to new discoveries and insights.

Furthermore, Gould's quote resonates with the broader philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry, emphasizing the value of skepticism, critical thinking, and intellectual humility. It encourages a nuanced understanding of the nature of facts and the provisional nature of scientific knowledge, promoting a mindset that is receptive to new information and open to revising our understanding based on the best available evidence.

Overall, Stephen Jay Gould's quote encapsulates the epistemic principles that underpin scientific inquiry, underscoring the rigorous standards that scientific facts must meet, the provisional nature of knowledge, and the imperative of basing our understanding on empirical evidence and reasoned inference. It stands as a testament to the foundational principles of science and the ongoing pursuit of a more accurate and comprehensive understanding of the natural world.