more on this theme | more from this thinker
Full Idea
I contest the essentialist doctrine that science aims at ultimate explanations, one which cannot be further explained, and which is in no need of any further explanation.
Gist of Idea
Science does not aim at ultimate explanations
Source
Karl Popper (Conjectures and Refutations [1963], 3.3)
Book Ref
Popper,Karl: 'Conjectures and Refutations' [RKP 1965], p.105
A Reaction
If explanations are causal, this seems to a plea for an infinite regress of causes, which is an odd thing to espouse. Are the explanations verbal descriptions or things in the world. There can be no perfect descriptions, but there may be ultimate things.
12176 | Science does not aim at ultimate explanations [Popper] |
12175 | Galilean science aimed at true essences, as the ultimate explanations [Popper] |
12179 | Essentialist views of science prevent further questions from being raised [Popper] |
12177 | Human artefacts may have essences, in their purposes [Popper] |