Modern science grounds truth rules in expert consensus, not transcendental authority

Evidence

With modern science, two new features appear in the problematic of legitimation. To begin with, it leaves behind the metaphysical search for a first proof or transcendental authority as a response to the question: “How do you prove the proof?” or, more generally, “Who decides the conditions of truth?” It is recognized that the conditions of truth, in other words, the rules of the game of science, are immanent in that game, that they can only be established within the bonds of a debate that is already scientific in nature, and that there is no other proof that the rules are good than the consensus extended to them by the experts. — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 248

Categorization

• DEFINE: States the modern immanence of truth conditions — key to what the postmodern condition overturns.
• XREF: Consensus-based truth rules are the target Jameson critiques as ideology; also connects to the reader’s prior work on Milgrom’s reputation institutions. — connects to: Consensus-based truth theories cannot justify specific assertions — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 434; The classical theory of truth remains indispensable for scientific practice — Alex Callinicos, Against Postmodernism: A Marxist…, 433; The people’s consensus and scientific consensus are the same legitimation model — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on…, 251 (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Scientific legitimation rests on consensus among experts about language rules #corroborates (0.95) — Jean-François Lyotard, The Postmodern Condition, 324
• Modern Western science displaced metaphysics and religion as the supreme authority over knowledge #expands (0.85) — Wael Hallaq, Restating Orientalism, 290