By: Michael Polanyi
Polanyi focused on the warrant of Scientific Judgment, where he says that until today, there are no strict criteria for what scientific truth is, or that we have no accepted theory of scientific knowledge. He relates this to the concept of logical positivism, which aims to find a strict definition of validity and meaning. He claims though that this is unattainable as proven by years and years of studies surrounding it.
Expounding further, he states that many people now accept the validity of science even without the need of philosophic justification. He took Ernest Nagelas an example, where the latter implies that the current scientific researches and theories may be rejected if it is proven that the scientific framework that we all currently know and follow is not actually correct. Scientific truththen is actually defined as that which scientists affirm and believe to be true.
Given all these, Polanyi stated that although this is the case, the lack of philanthropic justification, instead of weakening the strength of science as a truth, actually made it stronger. This is because of the innate humility in the scientific community, who are open to the possibility that what is know to be true to science today, may actually be proven false in the future. While scientific knowledge was supremely reliable, scientists were at the same time supremely open-minded.
Straight from the Hart 