One Answer

  1. To begin with, the natural sciences haven't given up on anything. Now science is dominated by pluralism in terms of philosophical conclusions. As for the objective truth in concrete research, for experimenters (not theorists), it is still the queen. Objective truth is something that exists outside of our consciousness, desires, etc. How can we deny it in practice and engage in natural sciences? Even humanitarians don't do this, they pretend to offer objective conclusions. Conclusions can be subjectivized indefinitely, especially philosophical ones, and imagined, for example, that a given electron exists only in the mind of a particular scientist, or that it is completely unknowable for him or everyone sees it in their own way, and so on. Humanitarians can add distortion for social reasons. But before we can draw all these conclusions, we will have to admit an objective truth: there is an electron. If it does not exist, then this is also an objective truth. And if it is both present and absent at the same time, then this fact will be true. To the extent that a person is engaged in science, he is trying to learn the truth and share it with other people, and therefore recognizes: a) that others can see the world as well as he can; b) that the subject of his research is generally valid. Science gives facts, philosophy gives speculations on what science has not managed or failed to study. You can always check certain facts at least to some extent with a certain qualification, but you can't check the philosophy.
    From this it is clear that positivism, in a certain everyday sense, is invincible. As long as you and I enjoy the fruits of science, we contribute to its promotion.

Leave a Reply