Re: Whence the notion of unending science?

"LudovicoVan" <julio@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:c3176033-6bbe-4aad-ac26-b495de4c86d7@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[...]

>Complete knowledge reduces to static >omnicomprehension and so it is
>incongruent with the principles of dynamism >underlying the historical
>discourse. Thus, a history of science where >science will a day
>understand everything is a logical impossibility. []

>More informally: a perspective that admits >complete knowledge is only
>compatible with a perspective that is >fundamentally anti-historic.
>Something like a contradiction in terms.

>-LV

This is very straightforward. Where does one learn more about these
principles of dynamism and when did they begin to be understood and by
whom?

I have followed up the earlier lead of John Wilkins (pessimistic
induction)
as a critique of scientific realism, but that issue seems to reduce to a
language problem, since it involves the notion "approximately true" and
ignores, as far as I can see, all theories of truth other than the
correspondence theory.

Ken