The philosophical and mathematical commentaries of Proclus on the first book of Euclid's elements (Vol. 1 of 2) : $b To which are added, A history of the restoration of Platonic theology, by the latter Platonists: And a translation from the Greek of Proclus's Theological elements
Plato · en
23. There is a remarkable difference between science and opinion.
Whatever is the subject of science must have a necessary existence; on
the contrary, opinion is conversant with things liable to mutation and
decay. Again, as science depends on necessary propositions for support;
so opinion on such as possess only a possibility of existence; and so
there is one mode of approbation in subjects of opinion, and another
in those of science. Hence science is distinguished from opinion by
two discriminations, the one arising from their subjects, the other
from the mode of approbation. That opinion is conversant with things
possible or contingent, we may learn from hence; contingencies cannot
belong to science, because their existence is not necessary; nor to
intellect, or that principle of science by which its terms are known;
nor to the apprehension or belief of immediate propositions, called
indemonstrable science. Hence, if every habit by which truth is known,
is either science, or intellect, or opinion, it remains that opinion
alone consists of things which are, indeed, true; but not necessary.
It is, therefore, inconstant and unstable, from the mutable nature of
its subjects. Besides, no one thinks he possesses an opinion of things
which he believes to have a necessary existence, so that they cannot be
otherwise than they are; but to such conviction he properly gives the
name of knowledge, and to its contrary the name of opinion.
Again, the same thing from the same propositions may at one time
become the subject of knowledge, at another, of opinion; and this
happens according to the different formation of the syllogism which
the propositions compose; whether reasoning from the proper cause it
explains the _why_, or only simply declares a thing exists. Hence
a doubt arises why opinions of this kind may not be called science,
since both the subjects and propositions are the same? The solution is
obvious. If it is believed that the propositions cannot be otherwise
than they are, or that they have a necessary existence, such an assent
of the mind is not opinion, but science; because things which inherit
an essential existence are the ornaments of science alone. On the
contrary, if we are convinced that the propositions are true, but
at the same time not necessary, such conviction is not science, but
opinion. Hence, it is impossible that science and opinion can be the
same, since they vary in their definition and mode of approbation, and
in a different manner demand our belief. Similar to this, although
it may happen that of the same thing a true and a false opinion may
arise, it will not therefore follow, that true and false opinions
are the same. For that which is firm and constant can never be the
same with that which is mutable and frail; and that which is always
true must be essentially different from that which may be changed into
false. By the power of habit indeed in different men, the same thing
may be comprehended by opinion and science.