No Single Theory Ever Agrees With All

One Might Get The Impression That I Recommend A New Methodology Which Replaces Induction By Counterinduction And Uses A Multiplicity Of Theories, Metaphysical Views, Fairy Tales, Instead Of The Customary Pair Theory/observation. This Impression Would Certainly Be Mistaken. My Intention Is Not To Replace One Set Of General Rules By Another Such Set: My Intention Is Rather To Convince The Reader That All Methodologies, Even The Most Obvious Ones, Have Their Limits.

Every Profession Has An Ideology And A Drive For Power That Goes Far Beyond Its Achievements And It Is The Task Of Democracy To Keep This Ideology And This Drive Under Control. Science Is Here No Different From Other Institutions.

Today Science Prevails Not Because Of Its Comparative Merits, But Because The Show Has Been Rigged In Its Favour... It Reigns Supreme Because Some Past Successes Have Led To Institutional Measures (education; Role Of Experts; Role Of Power Groups Such As The Ama) That Prevent A Comeback Of The Rivals.

The Only Principle That Does Not Inhibit Progress Is: Anything Goes.

Taking Experimental Results And Observations For Granted And Putting The Burden Of Proof On The Theory Means Taking The Observational Ideology For Granted Without Having Ever Examined It.