ABSTRACT
In the previous chapter we looked at the reliabilist claim that knowledge is true belief supported by a reliable method. The mention of method raises the following question: Is there a method distinctive of science-the scientific method? The scientific method, it is often claimed, is what distinguishes science from other ways of acquiring knowledge or belief. It is said in favour of science and its method that they are peculiarly well suited to the end of knowledge generation. Tarot and tea-leaves are, in contrast with the scientific method, unreliable and cannot be used as a way of getting to know anything. Furthermore, the very superiority of the scientific method explains the great success of science. When western civilization hit upon the scientific method sometime in the sixteenth century (some say later) it discovered the key to understanding the natural world, which in turn allowed the manipulation of that world, for better or for worse, in hitherto unprecedented ways. So the existence of scientific method allows not only for the demarcation of science from non-science, but also for the explanation of the historical success of science. Popper, for instance, sees conjecture and refutation as providing not only a demarcation criterion-falsifiability-but also, under the description “critical rationalism”, an explanation of the ability of science to progress.
