878
PARTISAN REVIEW
uine, unswerving, never-failing scientific attitude, whose very critical
awareness of its limits leaves room for every other source of truth
in
man.
In addition there is a wonderful virtue in science itself. In the
course of scientific development, only what is truly known is per–
manently preserved, the rest is eliminated through critique. So long
as free discussion prevails, a body of knowledge forms that is more
than the men who are its vehicle, a body of knowledge that no in–
dividual can encompass in all its scope.
At a time when confusion prevails regarding the meaning of
science, three tasks are imperative, corresponding to the three ten–
dencies discussed above.
First, the idea that total philosophical knowledge is scientific
knowledge must be exposed as false. The sciences themselves critically
explode this false total knowledge. It is here that the opposition to
philosophy has its root, and in this respect contempt of it is justifiable.
Secondly, the sciences must be made pure. This can be accomp–
lished through constant struggle and awareness in the course of our
scientific activity itself. By and large, the need for basic clarity con–
cerning science and its limits is readily admitted even by those who
sin against such clarity in practice. But the essential is to achieve this
purity within the specific sciences. This must be done largely through
the critical work of the scientists themselves. But the philosopher who
wishes to test the truth-meaning of scientific knowledge, to auscultate
it, so to speak, must participate
in
the actual work of these scientists.
Thirdly, a pure philosophy must be worked out in the new con–
ditions that have been created by the modern sciences. This is in–
dispensable for the sake of the sciences themselves. For philosophy
is always alive in the sciences, and so inseparable from them that the
purity of both can be .achieved only jointly. The rejection of philo–
sophy usually leads to the unwitting development of a bad philosophy.
The concrete work of the scientist is guided by his conscious or un–
conscious philosophy, and this philosophy cannot be the object of
scientific method.
For example: it is impossible to prove scientifically that there
should be such a thing as science. Or: The choice of an object of
science that is made from among an infinite number of existing ob-
