Section AThe idea that science can, and should, be run according to fixed and universal ru

Section A

The idea that science can, and should, be run according to fixed and universal rules, is both unrealistic and pernicious. (81) It is unrealistic, for it takes too simple a view of the talents of man and of the circumstances which encourage, or cause, their development. And it is pernicious, for the attempt to enforce the rules is bound to increase our professional qualifications at the expense of our humanity. (82) In addition, the idea is detrimental to science, for it neglects the complex physical and historical conditions which influence scientific change. It makes our science less adaptable and more dogmatic: every methodological rule is associated with cosmological assumptions, so that using the rule we take it for granted that the assumptions are correct. Naive falsificationism takes it for granted that the laws of nature are manifest and not hidden beneath disturbances of considerable magnitude. (83) Empiricism takes it for granted that sense experience is a better mirror of the world than pure thought. Praise of" argument takes it for granted that the artifices of Reason give better results than the unchecked play of our emotions. Such assumptions may be perfectly plausible and even true. Still, one should occasionally put them to a test. Putting them to a test means that we stop using the methodology associated with them, start doing science in a different way and see what happens. Case studies such as those reported in the preceding chapters show that such tests occur all the time, and that they speak against the universal validity of any rule. (84) All methodologies have their limitations and the only "rule" that survives is "anything goes. "

(85) The change of perspective brought about by these discoveries leads once more to the long- forgotten problem of the excellence of science. It leads to it for the first time in modern history, for modem science overpowered its opponents, it did not convince them. Science took over by force, not by argument (this is especially true of the former colonies where science and the religion of brotherly love were introduced as a matter of course, and without consulting, or arguing with, the inhabitants). Today we realize that rationalism, being bound to science, cannot give us any assistance in the issue between science and myth and we also know that myths are vastly better than rationalists have dared to admit. Thus we are now forced to raise the question of the excellence of science.

(80)