Re: Whence the notion of unending science?

On 30 Sep, 17:27, "Ken Miner" <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:d8791094-9652-49b1-977b-9641c0fc4f69@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > On 29 Sep, 20:51, "Ken Miner" <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> "LudovicoVan" <ju...@[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. []
[snip]
> It sounds as If the idea of unending science is linked to, perhaps
rooted
> in, historicism

Maybe worth noting: The argument given above does *not* conclude that
such a thing as "complete knowledge" does not exist. What it
implicitly says is that such a thing should ever come to existence,
that would also be the end of history, science, and actually of the
whole western rationality as we understand it now.

-LV