ABSTRACT
Reflective equilibrium as a method employed in empirical science does not seem to be too problematic; indeed, it seems that there is no other way of reaching a system of robust empirical generalizations than working back and forth between data and tentative generalizations. One of the most crucial problems of understanding logic in terms of the reflective equilibrium is the fact that we seem to need logic to work towards the equilibrium and if logic were only to be the outcome of a process aiming at reflective equilibrium, we seem to be trapped in a vicious circle. Objections to reflective equilibrium often point out that, taken as a methodology, it can let us defend almost any kind of theory. The laws articulated by logic are not mere representations of something that exists, in a wholly articulated shape, either within our thinking or somewhere under the surface of our language.
