Publication Details

Abstract

The author points out some difficulties met with by the theory according to which object is reflected in subject, the former being an original and the latter a copy. In order to; be able tc assert something to be a copy, we must directly know the original as well. However, we do not know it in the noetic relation between object and subject. Only subject itself is directly accesible. Since there is no possibility to compare object with subject, object cannot be said to be reflected in subject, and subject to be a copy. The argument, that at least historically, by evolution of science, the reflection of object in subject becomes more perfect, is not acceptable, either. Removal of contradictions between a hypothesis and empirical data, i. e. a consistent interpretation of all facts and steadily extending range of adequacy of a hypothesis is a criterion of improvement of scientific hypothesis. Hypothesis that is capable of accounting for more given facts than any other one, in a consistent way, is considered as the most approximative to objective reality. However, this criterion is not reliable either. It is not known whether the law of contradiction holds good also in object and whether we could, by means of á hypothesis with a broader, range of adequacy, get closer to it. It is only known that this law holds good for experience and that is why science adheres to it. In some cases there is certainty that our knowledge does not reflect anything objective because it does not reflect anything empirical. Judgments may serve as an example: „Today is Wednesday“. Wednesday does not exist either objectively or empirically; then negative judgments such as: „It does not rain today“. Non-raining does not exist, etc.