Now in the philosophical world there are two types of beliefs in the constructionists and the foundationalists. A constructionist, like an absolute skeptic, believes that there are no solid roots for science to use as foundations. This means that science can't progress because it is not possible to have an end without a starting point. Then there is the foundationalist, like an empiricist, who believes that these roots do exist, that means there is such a thing as science that can progress. An objective science would be a way that mankind can learn more about itself and the world around it and objectively or without too much distortion by human bias or beliefs. Only t

One of the great minds to agree with the foundationalists belief was French Philosopher Rene Descartes. He came unto one point in which he philosophically liked to use as a starting point or foundation. I think therefore I am. Simple enough but it was a starting point to build everything up from there. He was not an empiricist though, he felt that his senses betrayed him in dreams and therefore did not fully trust them. Dreams and simple arithmetic fascinated Descartes; even in a dream the square root of four is two as well in the real world and everywhere else in the known universe. To Descartes simple arithmetic was constant and he always liked to work with mathematical formulas. Descartes therefore believed that science could be put onto a secure basis and even furthered the mathematical sciences with some theorems in geometry that still hold true today. (Kessler 322-327)

Anderson tries to take from both in saying that both have some good points but in the end winds up siding with Longino. She feels that value-laden inquiry is the best way for science. To move ahead it is okay to have science filled with some worldly values because the theorem still need evidence and they still will be tested. Putting in these values will help move along science even though this means it will not be fully objective. I believe Anderson's value-laden inquiry helps to show that science could still move along even if everything is not perfect. It just won't be the type of progress we could make if we could only have objective science. (Kessler 396-401)

Some common words found in the essay are:
Rene Descartes, Germany Haack, , Structure Science, Hume Kessler, Helen Logino, Susan Haack, Epistemology Apparatchik, Hume Anderson, objective science, means science, Elizabeth Anderson, putting values, unbiased impartial fair, learn grow, progress objective, science means, simple arithmetic, secure basis, science progress, weed weaker theories, onto secure basis, progress objective science, science move,
Approximate Word count = 1685
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page double spaced)