The Legitimacy of Science and Love

Abstract

If we allow for interpretation in the creation of knowledge, validity cannot come from experimental verification alone according to a positivist or neo-positivist view. Cournot pointed out the importance of a theory’s simplicity, but there are other factors, such as coherence with other theories, etc. But why isn’t the interpretative invention of the researcher systematically considered as subjective and socially formatted? Why does individual enlightenment pass so easily to a paradigm shared by a scientific community? Another interpretative and social phenomenon that can enlighten us on this matter is love, often legitimized because it happens “by chance”. The parallel goes further than one might think. To prove the researcher’s innocence one should play down the interpretative dimension of his activity and present science as comprised only of fortuitous discoveries of reality. On the other hand, to prove the researcher's culpability we need to recognize his interpretative skill and the cultural aspect of science, seeing research as an activity that shapes reality and its truths.