Science (seemingly) does not (or should not) intend to start from a conclusion, yet there are many proponents of it that clearly do so in what they might refer to as their pursuit for truth. It should not mean to assert a truth and then continually test the security of it. If this is ones approach I fear (with great reason) that self justification of such an asserted truth will cause the individual (or collective) to never step into the realm of possibility of the certain truths falseness.
This is what it is meant by “methodological” which is something that is pointed out by John Nash in Ideal Money that we SHOULD or MIGHT adopt for our global financial system, BUT because of our Keynesian beliefs we have not. Our current method of achieving optimal economic efficiency makes the same mistake as the type of peoples described above.
Today we try to use inflation targeting to target optimal conditions that might inspire an optimal economic system. This however is NOT the methodological way.
Methodological, means we are to ask (not answer!) the question, “What is “OPTIMAL?” in regard to the conditions required for the optimization of our financial system. And so the machines, systems, devices, and policies should not be designed to target some arbitrary definition of optimal…
But rather the system itself and its infrastructure should be designed to levate and answer the question of “What is optimal?”
It should be no surprise that the average or general person, or a large portion of our society (whether learned or not) has inherited this false doctrine of methodology when our entire system for interaction is based on it.