Vico’s Ring
249
do not reveal [3
rd
kind:] the essences or causes of things» (
ibid.
, p. 176; italics
original).
521
In Röd, the second kind of knowledge is explicated emphatically as in-
herently «hypothetisch (hypothetical)» (Id.,
Spinozas Idee der Scientia intuitiva und
die Spinozanische Wissenschaftskonzeption
, cit.). “Hypothetical” assumes its seman-
tic value strictly by comparison with «intuitive knowledge». The term “sci-
ence” also would undergo relativization: «Was in der Gegenwart unter “wis-
senschaftlicher Erkenntnis” verstanden wird, ist in keinem Falle als adäquate
Erkenntnis im Sinne Spinozas zu kennzeichnen, sondern wäre von Spinozas
Standpunkt aus als inadäquate Erkenntnis auf Grund von Beobachtungen und
kausalgesetzlichen Hypothesen aufzufassen gewesen (What is understood to-
day as “scientific knowledge” is not at all to be characterized as adequate
knowledge in Spinoza’s sense, but would have to be understood from the
standpoint of Spinoza as inadequate knowledge pursuant to observations and
hypotheses formed according to the laws of causality)» (
ibid.
, p. 149). As a
corollary, the modern term “underdetermination” used in connection with
scientific theorizing is not coterminous, either, with Spinozan «hypotheses»,
intersecting with it only trivially. This has been recognized by Curley: «If the
statement “hypotheses are underdetermined by experiment” means merely
that no experimental data, no matter how extensive, will ever make a hypothe-
sis metaphysically certain, […], very probably Spinoza would agree» (Id.,
Notes
on a Neglected Masterpiece
, cit., p. 66). However, in the subsequent comment on
the Boyle/Spinoza controversy, Curley reverts to treating Spinoza’s proposi-
tion of «homogeneity» at the empirical level rather than as metaphysically mo-
tivated. With respect to Spinoza’s framework of biblical interpretation, an
analogous qualification is made by Walther inusing the term «philosophisch-
wissenschaftliche(n) Theorie (philosophical-scientific theory)» (Id.,
Biblische
Hermeneutik und historische Erklärung
, cit., p. 276); in other words, to qualify as
fully “scientific”, biblical hermeneutics would need to conform to Spinoza’s
ontology.
522
Th. Nowak explained: «When hypotheses have been challenged over an
extended period of time and always found to be consistent, these then be-
come “laws”» (Id.,
A Molecular Glimpse of How Mother Nature Can Regulate Our
Being
, in
Forms of Truth and the Unity of Knowledge
, ed. by V. Hösle, Notre Dame,
University of Notre Dame Press, 2014, pp. 115-139, p. 117). In Spinoza’s
conception, “hypotheses” never lose their dubious status by their intrinsic and
systemic shortcoming of not constituting «intuitive knowledge». The Spinozan
epistemic status of «hypotheses» is related to various Propositions in
Ethics
,
in
D. Savan,
Spinoza: Scientist and Theorist of Scientific Method
,
cit., pp. 115-118.