outdated (subjectivistic) view of science that poses a problem, and is judged? Hence, for the case of the argument it is in order to assert: If the scientific character of philosophy is unsound, then philosophy must undergo a revision of its premisses in order to secure its own scientific foundations, and rid itself of its self-referring criterium veri - subjectivism - rather than the foundations of the empirical sciences.28 In addition, it is difficult to understand exactly how the Philosopher can criticize the tenets of empirical science if he has not critically analyzed the tenets of his own science first.29 Seen from the Botanist’s view the empirical sciences have never claimed to establish absolute truths, but merely wished to convey truths relative to and dependent upon empirical material, then the relativity of empirical knowledge is of little importance.30 Seen from thePhilosopher’s perspective it is the low ambitions of empirical science that is the root of the problem, as the inductively established truths of empirical science are only statistically certain, but never absolute, and provided that apodictic necessity constitutes the hallmark of good science, then the Philosopher, on account of the relative uncertainty of empirical knowledge, diminishes the scientific value of inductive truth to nothing. The Botanists holds the Philosopher’s analysis as being highly improbable, not to say illogical, and objects that the Philosopher’s analysis is unsatisfactory, since, contrary to reason, the Philosopher implies that it is highly improbable that a multitude of uniform observations inductively supporting a conclusion actually expresses truth, or that such observations at least indicate the existence a ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 177 28 Cf. Hägerström, “B. o. F.,” pp. 39-42. 29 Cf. Kant, Cr. P. R., pp.A vii-xi and B xxxv-xxxviii. See, e.g., Hägerström, Den moraliska känslan, “Förord”. 30 Hägerström, “B. o. F.,” p. 18. 2 . 1 to whom do the re lat ivi ty of synthet ic truths a poste riori pose a problem, to the Philosopher or the Botanist?