07-04-12: AlmargThis is a point worth expanding upon. The difference between "discovered" and "discoverable" reflects two different views of science. The first view is that science is...
Objectivists are frequently mischaracterized as believing that if something isn't measurable, it isn't audible... the phrase "discoverable by science"...does not mean "has been discovered by science."
1. Static.
2. Reductionistic.
3. Dogmatic.
The second view is that science is...
1. Revisable.
2. Expansible.
3. Provisional.
There is truth in both views, insofar as older scientists tend to be more entrenched in their views than younger ones, a point made famously in Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The entrenchment of *some* scientists can give the impression that science is static, reductionistic, and dogmatic.
But when you look at science as a whole over a long period of time, it becomes clear that, however entrenched some scientists may be, their ideas will ALWAYS be revised, elaborated, or altogether displaced by future science. This is evident throughout the history of physics, which was repeatedly transformed from Aristotle to Newton to Einstein to Heisenberg to the host of scientists working on Unified Field Theory. This is just one of many examples of how science is revisable, expansible, and provisional.
The revisability, expansibility, and provisionality of science is relevant to debates between Objectivists and Subjectivists. Subjectivists sometimes misrepresent Objectivists as being uniformly rigid, reductionistic, or dogmatic. No doubt there are some Objectivists who behave that way, but that behavior isn't a result of their Objectivism. It's a result of their entrenchment. And that's something that can happen to anybody, Objectivist or not.
Bryon