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?
January 2, 2016 at 10:20 am (Uncategorized)