As taken from Wikepedia, "Hempel's Dilemma is a question first asked by the philosopher Carl Hempel. It has relevance to naturalism and physicalism in philosophy, and to philosophy of mind.
Naturalism, in at least one rough sense, is the claim that the entire world may be described and explained using the laws of nature, in other words, that all phenomena are natural phenomena. This leaves open the question of what is 'natural', but one common understanding of the claim is that everything in the world is ultimately explicable in the terms of physics. This is physicalism.
However, physicalism in its turn leaves open the question of what we are to consider as the PROPER TERMS OF PHYSICS. There seem to be two options here, and these options form the horns of Hempel's dilemma, because neither seems satisfactory.
On the one hand, if we take physics to be our current physics, then the claim of physicalism is clearly false, at least to the extent that physics today does not explain everything and very few people would claim that it gives us the whole truth. On the other hand, if we say that some future, 'ideal' physics is what is meant, then the claim is rather empty, for we do not know what it means. In effect, physicalism by this second account becomes the circular claim that all phemenona are explicable in terms of physics because physics properly defined is whatever explains all phenomena."
If we are to assume that yesterday's (no not LITERALLY yesterday, DA) physics is bunk, relative to TODAY, then how does today's knowledge stand up to future "enlightenment"? Are physicists of today trying to do the best they can with the tools they have; while waiting for some future promise of clarity?
This is a most sweeping statement in order to demonstrate that science is a fluid construct which adapts to the times and to the current acumen of: now.
My point is, for example: we can study, for our entire lives, one thing and can we truly understand it? Sure one might be more "knowledgeable" in this specialized study...but what will future generations say about the science of today? Is this the best we can do?
Assuming that NOW is the most technologically advanced age, in human existence, then why is it not good enough? How long will it take to have flying cars, which run on anti-gravity; how much longer before we "cure" cancer etc..?
There was a topic, something along the lines of ~ Has science failed humanity?; well yes and no.
Is science, in its current state, competent enough for future scrutiny? Because evidentally yesterday's is not sufficient anymore...
Sincerely,
