I am not sure why you have brought up Polanyi's Jewishness unless you want to include anti-Semitic prejudice among your approved methods.SEG wrote: ↑Sun Jul 14, 2019 9:42 pmIs faith a reliable pathway to the truth? Polanyi (the former Jew converted to a Roman Cathlolic) thought so, is this your belief too? Is there ANY belief that can't be justified by faith?
If scientists come to different conclusions using reason, logic, and evidence, then these conclusions are tested under the peer review process to filter out faulty conclusions.
If different faiths disagree on what is true, nothing comes of it. They are all stuck in the cement of ignorance.
Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos don't agree with Popper's views according to a critical paper on how he deals with theories in scientific method.
I don't think faith taken in isolation is a reliable pathway to truth and I don't think Polanyi thought that. He calls his approach post-critical not anti-critical. What he is arguing, and argues very cogently with many examples from all fields of science, is that science is not a purely rational enterprise and has what he calls a fiduciary element.
Yes, peer review is an important additional method but it cannot verify a theory or attest to its formal probability. Polanyi gives a very good account of the structures that enable peer review and they are not formal logical structures but rather structures of interlinked, branching collegiality. They enable to people to judge the validity of a theory rather than prove it. Collegiality as a method is well developed in most religious traditions, and though inter faith collegiality is a rather new matter it certainly exists.
Kuhn, Feyerabend and Lakatos do not argue against Popper's rejection of rational verification or assessment of the formal probability of theories being true; they argue against his case for rational falsification. Kuhn and Lakatos do this by looking at theories as complex structures and not simple generalisations. They also look at the social factors involved in falsification. Feyarabend especially is utterly clear on this. He says that there is no method by means of which we can determine that any general theory is true, probably true, probably false or false. He says in so many words that you can have science or you can have reason but there is no way you can have both. He also shows that many of the most successful scientific theories were established in spite of the evidence not because of it and proposes a method of counter-inductivity, that is going against the evidence not with it. He is an anarchist not a rationalist as you seem to have imagined.