FAQ'S REGARDING THE "EMPIRICIST CONSENSUS"
IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

1. What is the "empiricist consensus"?

2. Who held this view?

3. How has the philosophy of science been shaped by this consensus?

4. What was the view of those who belonged to this consensus?

5. What are the elements of this consensus?

6. Does this mean that we are rational to believe only statements about what we can "observe" (i.e., see, hear, touch, smell or taste)?

7. Why is this observational/theoretical distinction so important?

8. Doesn't the observational evidence prove the theoretical statements for which it is the evidence?

9. What is the relationship between empirical evidence and theory?

10. Why are we justified in accepting the theoretical statements used in such scientific explanations?

11. How are the universal statements which become accepted as laws related to each other?

12. How does this epistemological outlook relate to the "scientific method"?

13.  How do we first arrive at the hypotheses which come to be accepted as laws of nature?

14. How can change in scientific belief be explained by the consensus?

15. Are theoretical laws "true"?

16. Does the consensus hold that it is describing actual science?

17. What is the purpose of a philosophy of science which ignores real science and concentrates on a perhaps unattainable ideal?