2 Answers

  1. So it shouldn't. The scientific method is part of philosophy and is derived from philosophical methods, not scientific ones. Otherwise, it would turn out that he gives birth to himself and justifies himself.

  2. Everything is so. According to the Duhem-Quine thesis, it is impossible to definitively determine the truth of a scientific theory.

    The scientific method is not able to provide any reasonable confirmation or refutation of any knowledge due to problems:

    The problem of deduction. The truth of the necessary consequences does not depend on the truth of the premises (grounds), but the truth of each premise depends entirely on its consequences.

    The problem of induction. No consequence (evidence) determines unambiguously the truth of its premises (hypotheses).

    The abduction problem. The discovery (presentation) of new knowledge has no deductive or inductive solution.

    The justification of a scientific theory is taken as its simple, unfounded agreement, which satisfies the principles designed to clear it of obviously redundant and contradictory relations, but does not justify their truth:

    The principle of deduction(development of truth). Those consequences are necessary that are true in those and only those cases (models, worlds, situations) in which their premises are true.

    The principle of induction. A hypothesis is accepted as a new and well-founded truth, and all its alternatives (opposite conjectures) are rejected if the decisive prediction derived from it (previously unknown fact derived from the hypothesis) is confirmed by experience.�

    The principle of abduction. That guess is closer to the truth, which provides a plausible explanation of the anomalous fact in the case of its acceptance, than in the case of non-acceptance (acceptance of any of its alternatives).

    Therefore, according to Paul Feyerabend, the only principle that does not create obstacles to progress is the principle of “everything is permissible”. Otherwise, the fanatical belief of adherents of scientific theories in their truth becomes their religious paranoia, since these theories are based only on the dogmatism of axioms and the catechism of the faith of the scientific community.

    A paranoid person is someone who has at least a little idea of how things really are. — William Burroughs

    On the other hand, the scientific method is based on the objectivity of the results, their equality for any observer, and excludes subjective, observer-dependent results. This allows us to adopt a consistent approach in the scientific community, which at least ensures the consistency of materials for their mutual use and allows us to build relationships in the community on the basis of a generally accepted standard, once again confirming the thesis.:

    The true culture of the spirit is tested by the ability to simultaneously hold two directly opposite ideas in consciousness and at the same time not lose the other ability — to act. – Francis Scott Fitzgerald, “The Wreck”

    Thus, when everyone goes mad in their own way, then together we compensate for each other's follies, not allowing Foucault's pendulum to throw us beyond the limit of the possibilities of our existence, which, according to Democritus, should be balanced by a sense of proportion ,that is, the correspondence of human behavior to its natural capabilities and abilities.

    But in order for the scientific method to satisfy the principle of “permissibility of everything”, it is necessary to apply it exclusively on a voluntary and contractual basis. It is difficult to overestimate the significance and revolutionary nature of such an approach, because it will significantly change the entire social ornanization and legal basis, prohibiting making compulsory, final and irreversible decisions in the sphere of any relations, except for voluntary-contractual ones, which cannot be just as easily terminated unilaterally by paying a penalty without irreversible consequences.

Leave a Reply