What to abandon in conflict case, the hypothesis or the proper protocolic proposal? In On the Bedding of the Knowledge, Schlick asks if it will not be, of this form, being the placed science outside of the control of the facts: ‘ ‘ fatuais proposals, thus understood, in principle accurately coat the same character that all the other proposals of science: they are hypotheses, nothing more than what hipteses.’ ‘ This critical one adds it the following schlickiana accusation: ‘ ‘ The negation of the existence of a external world transcendente would be one so Metaphysical proposal how much its afirmao.’ ‘ The fisicalistas are defended, supporting that declared and facts are realities of different species, having only felt in speaking of correspondence between declared and other statements, that are privileged at any given time for convenience reasons. A convencionalista position is observed here, that already considers the insufficience of only empirical criteria in the verification of scientific theories, making to intervine convenience reasons. All this quarrel concerning the nature of the beings who must populate the protocolic or fundamental proposals scrumbles it the question of the estruturao of an adjusted observacional language to the scientific project. Such language, supposedly capable make reference to unequivocal reference the data of the immediate experience, would serve footing insurance for the boldest scientific proposals, that is, the hypotheses, since that it was possible to establish a consistent entailing between it and theoretical language of science. Thus, the conditions of verification of a scientific hypothesis would be atreladas to the conditions of verification of entailed the protocolic proposals it, or of it decurrent.

Comments are closed.