Science: coherence ? provisional foundation ?
(idle speculation and conjecture ahead) ;)
It seems to me that the scientific methodologies roughly consist of a move (process) from coherentism to provisional/tentative/falsifiable foundationalism.
The methodologies can be run or not, depending on the evidence and all kinds of details.
Of course science is vast and varied enough that it's hard to squeeze it all into a neat scheme, in real life there's a lot more to it.
The conjecture could be shown like so:
Haven't come across something in philosophy of science mentioning this stuff (and my to-do list is way too darn long), maybe someone hereabouts has?
It seems to me that the scientific methodologies roughly consist of a move (process) from coherentism to provisional/tentative/falsifiable foundationalism.
The methodologies can be run or not, depending on the evidence and all kinds of details.
Of course science is vast and varied enough that it's hard to squeeze it all into a neat scheme, in real life there's a lot more to it.
The conjecture could be shown like so:
evidence ? (methodologies) ? models
coherentist ? (methodologies) ? provisional foundationalist
Haven't come across something in philosophy of science mentioning this stuff (and my to-do list is way too darn long), maybe someone hereabouts has?
Comments (1)
Hopefully coherentism takes care of itself, both in terms of foundationalism ought to yield a single coherent theory (trivial) in because of the condition of empirical falsification (assuming the universe itself is coherent).
Interestingly though, physics has two foundational theories -- quantum field theory, and general relativity -- which are, put together (holism), incoherent and non-empirical.