Soapy Sour Taste In Mouth

:-) BYE BYE empirical testing.

was Karl Popper. He said the remark was interpreted by the theory.
Ok.
Around the same time, although unknown, Koyré was saying that any physical theory is understood in the light of a philosophical theory that would back. Koyré
had studied with Husserl in 1913, who in 1935 would make a formidable critique of positivism in "The Crisis of European Sciences." Koyré
traveled to the U.S. in 50 and raised the dogmatic slumber to a young man named Thomas Kuhn.
Kuhn later said in 1962 that any physical theory depended on the theoretical load present on the paradigm that sustained it. Observed was interpreted as the paradigm. So the fall of a body is one thing in Ptolemy and Galileo otherwise. So to see bodies falling, look galielos or Ptolemies, and interpret what is happening. Then came
Lakatos and said yes, that scientists cling to a central core, but later, as a consequence not attempted, the defense says they have tried or weakens the core. And that was wise, therefore, run the risk of sustaining a core regressive as long as there is awareness of risk.
Feyerabend comes in. So, in short, states that everything then depends on the creativity of the scientific and literary ability to convince others of their theory.
But he said much more. Among them, that if metaphysics differs from science and empirical testing, but we have seen, there is no independent testing of theories, then there is no empirical testing as it seeks to traditional science, and so there is no difference between metaphysics and science.
Then everything is metaphysical, that is all theory.
What distinguishes a good theory of a bad theory? To This theory should be subjected to rational criticism, which is not foolproof, but it is not simply the Socratic dialogue with our own theories. Popper was right: the criticism is necessary, but not facts versus theories, but theories versus theories.
Plato, Aristotle, Empedocles, Pythagoras, Ptolemy, St. Augustine, St. Anselm, Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Newton, Darwin, Freud, Einstein, Wittgenstein. Husserl, Edith Stein, J. Ratzinger. These are only examples, not exclusive of others, just to say, they are all theoretical. No difference between philosophy and science. There is no empirical testing. There are theories. Worldviews. Paradigms. Horizons. Lifeworlds. Let's face
. Everything is theory. They are all philosophers, we are all philosophers, all, therefore, we argue and try to sustain the theory to rational criticism of another theory. And what is the problem? That movement of reason out the truth and the best of the human. We have abandoned the truth in an impossible, an "experiment" that seeks to eliminate "human." And this is also a theory, and very bad, because it created a monster: a materiality that can not speak, a speaker mute, a psychosis, we believe that it exists and speaking. An experiment, without the human theory, can talk and tell us the truth, is as impossible that, in this, believe in the green duenceditos is more rational because they do not involve self-contradiction and at least we have placed in them the truth.
live in an age where belief in a supposed experimental science, in his alleged antics and measurement, has become a psychosis, which has invaded the deepest human areas and eats like a virus. Reason and truth are silent and wait. Plato's dialogues have been relegated to the world of the beauty and humanity waiting gods exist.