>The name "science" can be used in the sense of designating the actual practice that people are doing in universities, in research, etc., and can be used to designate a teleological ideal - that is, the ideal of science.
>An ideal of science would be apoditic knowledge, an indestructible knowledge so to speak. But this is only an ideal. The practice of science can be guided by this ideal, but it cannot be fully realized. She always falls short. However, if current science assumes the prestige of the teleological ideal of science, then you will be deceived and deceived.
>There is serious science only when science gives up having public authority. It's a paradox: if science is continually criticizing and reforming itself, then it has the right to change its mind as many times as necessary. And if she has the right to change her mind at any time, she cannot have any public authority.
>What kind of authority is it that says one thing one day and says the next day another? So she cannot have authority. For it to be a serious science, it has to relinquish public authority and acquire only a suggestive role. >By the time that science is consecrated as an authority, it has already become a hustle and bustle. Either one engages in a critical activity that is continually correcting itself or one has the authority to decree one thing once and for all. Both things cannot be done at the same time
>If science proposes to be the free rational investigation of reality, no conclusion that it offers about anything can be exempt from criticism and therefore none can have 'authority', except in the sense of intellectual prestige without privileged support from state power.
>The statization of scientific authority, to whatever degree, foreshadows the death of science and the advent of the 'scientific dictatorship' advocated by Auguste Comte, who in fact died a madman. State authority is the refuge of scientism, not science.
>An ideal of science would be apoditic knowledge, an indestructible knowledge so to speak. But this is only an ideal. The practice of science can be guided by this ideal, but it cannot be fully realized. She always falls short. However, if current science assumes the prestige of the teleological ideal of science, then you will be deceived and deceived.
>There is serious science only when science gives up having public authority. It's a paradox: if science is continually criticizing and reforming itself, then it has the right to change its mind as many times as necessary. And if she has the right to change her mind at any time, she cannot have any public authority.
>What kind of authority is it that says one thing one day and says the next day another? So she cannot have authority. For it to be a serious science, it has to relinquish public authority and acquire only a suggestive role. >By the time that science is consecrated as an authority, it has already become a hustle and bustle. Either one engages in a critical activity that is continually correcting itself or one has the authority to decree one thing once and for all. Both things cannot be done at the same time
>If science proposes to be the free rational investigation of reality, no conclusion that it offers about anything can be exempt from criticism and therefore none can have 'authority', except in the sense of intellectual prestige without privileged support from state power.
>The statization of scientific authority, to whatever degree, foreshadows the death of science and the advent of the 'scientific dictatorship' advocated by Auguste Comte, who in fact died a madman. State authority is the refuge of scientism, not science.
