" If the purpose of scientific method is to select from among a multitude of hypotheses, and if the number of hypotheses grows faster than experimental method can handle, then it is clear that all hypotheses can never be tested. If all hypotheses cannot be tested, then the results of any experiment are inconclusive and the entire scientific method falls short of its goal of establishing proven knowledge." From: http://www.aoe.vt.edu/~ciochett/lit/part2.html " As to whether progress consists in science discovering ultimate truths, Kuhn observed that "we may have to relinquish the notion, explicit or implicit, that changes of paradigm carry scientists and those who learn from them closer and closer to the truth." Instead, the developmental process of science is one of evolution from primitive beginnings through successive stages that are characterized by an increasingly detailed and refined understanding of nature. Kuhn argued that this is not a process of evolution toward anything, and he questioned whether it really helps to imagine that there is one, full, objective, true account of nature. He likened his conception of the evolution of scientific ideas to Darwin's conception of the evolution of organisms. " http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html So it seems to me that the empiricists and the materialists are operating as much in the dark as anyone else. The determinant of which hypotheses even occur to the would be scientist would (given the above) be his/her cultural and individual backround, including of course their scientific culture. The only real advantage that the materialist/empiricist has is that their particular bias is currently the majority opinion. How many possible conceptual scientist worlds could have been created from the available bits of observational data? The Kuhn qoute even suggests that we may be making up the conceptual scientist universe as we go Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!