So Long As We Use A Certain

Our Reliance On The Validity Of A Scientific Conclusion Depends Ultimately On A Judgment Of Coherence; And As There Can Exist No Strict Criterion For Coherence, Our Judgment Of It Must Always Remain A Qualitative, Nonformal, Tacit, Personal Judgment.

The Information In Dna Could No More Be Reduced To The Chemical Than Could The Ideas In A Book Be Reduced To The Ink And Paper: Something Beyond Physics And Chemistry Encoded Dna.

I Shall Suggest, On The Contrary, That All Communication Relies, To A Noticeable Extent On Evoking Knowledge That We Cannot Tell, And That All Our Knowledge Of Mental Processes, Like Feelings Or Conscious Intellectual Activities, Is Based On A Knowledge Which We Cannot Tell.

We Cannot Ultimately Specify The Grounds (either Metaphysical Or Logical Or Empirical) Upon Which We Hold That Our Knowledge Is True. Being Committed To Such Grounds, Dwelling In Them, We Are Projecting Ourselves To What We Believe To Be True From Or Through These Grounds. We Cannot Therefore See What They Are. We Cannot Look At Them Because We Are Looking With Them.

Admittedly, Scientific Authority Is Not Distributed Evenly Throughout The Body Of Scientists; Some Distinguished Members Of The Profession Predominate Over Others Of A More Junior Standing.