I may be clutching at straws in my search for clarity on this topic, and being not a graduate philosopher but a layman, please forgive me if the following seems obtuse or inane.

But it seems to me, that on the course of all scientific study, there is a moment that we realise our theories - our mathematics and other developments - are merely models, and have come from the mind of mere humans. That is really to put the standing of all our intellectual advancement in a rather pejorative way, but the question is not what this mode of thinking is called.

Rather, it is what the original mode of thinking is called, that preceded this understanding. That is, what do we call the mode of thinking (if any) that takes scientific reasoning in a 'factual', 'undeniable' light? That is, what do we call that mode of thinking, that takes the 'pejorative' sense of human advancement dispassionately, and claims a simpler, naïve approach?

I hope I am making sense. I believe the former approach is merely called 'science' (including models, etc). But it occurred to me that there may be a point of view which does not think about the way in which approximations can be made in science.

  • 1
    I am guessing you refer to what is called dogmatic attitude (towards science, in this case), and what replaces it, critical attitude. This applies not just to the general public but also to scientists themselves, see e.g. Kuhn vs. Popper on Criticism and Dogmatism in Science.
    – Conifold
    Aug 31, 2021 at 23:19
  • There are approaches which ain for 'pre-conceptual thinking as path to truth:' Philosophers or philosophical traditions that reject symbolic reasoning' philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/82360/… On only working with models when we reason conceptually, see: 'How the Laws of Physics Lie' by Nancy Cartwright. Does that fit?
    – CriglCragl
    Aug 31, 2021 at 23:44
  • Do you mean scientific realism? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism
    – user4894
    Sep 1, 2021 at 0:37
  • Yes, @Conifold, I do mean a dogmatic attitude. Thank you the link, it should prove very useful. Sep 1, 2021 at 12:47
  • 1
    Thank you @CriglCragl. That is an interesting take on my question, and the link. Sep 1, 2021 at 12:50


You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .