Science has always had the note of certain knowledge, but it shifted from seeing the certitude in the object and method to the certitude in just the method. We want the conclusions to be defeasible but the method to be able to divide science from pseudo-science (Popper’s criterion even makes these logically entail one another.) But there is a tension (a hypocrisy?) in our claims to be infallible in our methods but fallible in our conclusions. The method has to be based on insight into some natures – that they are this and not that – but then how can the conclusion never attain to this sort of universality? What insight going beyond induction serves as the basis that we can never get past induction?

1 Comment

  1. William Farris said,

    January 2, 2016 at 2:21 pm

    Without waxing postmodern (e.g., Paul Feyerbend) perhaps there really is no one method in science. Biology is largely observation-based whether in a lab or out in the field, and therefore, inductive Aristotelianism. Theoretical physics like cosmology is playing around in a contrived mathematical sandbox modeling reality, hence is largely deductive and speculative Platonism. Without further delineation, “science” is too vague to make sweeping claims as one method to truth as opposed to other methods.

%d bloggers like this: