is a definite this, which in turn indicates that knowledge itself must seek to attach itself to the objective side of the cognitive constellation, the objects themselves. Second, when defining, determining, classifying, and systematizing objects we stand before something that can only be performed by the use of one’s own subjective conceptual faculties.86 Accordingly, it is thus as if the construction of knowledge must attach itself to the subjective side of the cognitive constellation.The question here is:To whom do we turn for guidance?The Botanist provides a solution to this problem expressing unreflective empiricism or nominalism, thereby asserting that empirical scientists demand that nothing but experience should serve as the source to knowledge. Truth is derived directly from observation or inferences based upon observation. Moreover, the concepts are nothing but an abstract reproduction, a word, indicating the occurrence of numerous instances and observations. Thus reducing the concept to a word, to which only the Philosopher accords further objective meaning.87 The Botanist’s definition of concepts as names or signs for objects of a similar kind, does not satisfy the Philosopher’s more exacting conceptual demands.88 The definition provided by the Botanist, according to the Philosopher, is far too imprecise to allow any meaningful determination of concepts.The Philosopher’s view is that if the Botanist’s unreflective empirical definition of concepts and universals (nominalism) is used in science, then anything goes. If this constitutes the scientific method of determining concepts, then conceptual determination depends upon highly arbitrary mental processes for its validity, rather than upon fixed and determinable methods, ensuring objectivity proper.89 a ca l l f o r s c i e n t i f i c p u r i t y 195 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid., p. 80. 88 After the Botanist’s refutation of the Philosopher’s circular demonstration of the validity of the law of causality, ten years pass and the two meet again for a rematch. 89 Cf. Hägerström, “B. o. F.,” pp. 80-81.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=