RB 65

than express a string of coincidences?34 Nevertheless, the Philosopher argues that empirical science per se is non-scientific, since it lacks a philosophically acceptable foundation. All in all, by forgetting that probability by definition encompasses every option that is not objectively impossible, the Philosopher has problems understanding the inherent vagueness of the term probable.Accordingly, the Philosopher confuses vagueness for indeterminateness, and on account of his own terminological confusion dismisses the concept of probability as being unreal and unscientific.35 Undaunted by the Philosopher’s iconoclastic attack on modern science, the Botanist shows marked indifference to the philosophical position, and asks: “Of what concern is to us modern thinkers a philosophy that transcends experience? ‘Quid Saulus inter prophetas’?”36 The truly philosophical issue at hand, which constitutes a point of central importance for the further development of Hägerström’s philosophy, is the discussion regarding the limited range of truth that empirical sciences have, at least when compared with the absolute and universal range of the truths that non-empirical sciences claim to have. Empirical sciences have a restricted area of investigation and validity, and are restricted to space, time, and things when demonstrating the validity of their conclusions, while the non-empirical sciences’ area of investigation and validity is - or at least claims to be - independent of space, time, and a ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 179 34 Ibid., pp. 20-21. 35 It appears as to misunderstand the empirical sciences’ method in this manner constitutes a common error in jurisprudence, where the positive law’s lack of philosophical necessity is mistaken for a corresponding lack of positive validity, as is the opposite, when a philosophical norm’s “necessity” and validity is mistaken for its positive validity and applicability. See Parts V andVI. 36 Hägerström,“B. o. F.,” p. 39. My translation. Swedish:“Vad angår oss moderna en filosofi som går over all erfarenhet? ‘Quid Saulus inter prophetas’?” 2 . 2 the l imi ted range of truth in emp i rical sci ence s