That's like asking how can the statement "bananas are known to be a kind of fruit" be an accurate representation of what fruit is? Your question doesn't make sense, but I suspect that is just a diction issue. I assume you mean simply this:Plasmatic wrote:If the "philosophy of science" includes any number of views on what the "limitations of science" are, then how can the statement " the limitations of science are well understood in the philosophy of science" be an accurate representation what the philosophy of science is?
Statements of this kind only have the possibility of being accurate from within a chosen framework. For example, given there are varying philosophical views as to what constitutes science, your statement cannot be strictly accurate either: "Science is a process of systematic collection and compilation of knowledge for the purpose of sustaining and enhancing the life of beings with a conceptual consciousness."If the "philosophy of science" includes any number of views on what the "limitations of science" are, then how can the statement "the limitations of science are well understood in the philosophy of science" be accurate?
Such statements only have the possibility of being accurate from within given frameworks. The interesting questions revolve around whether or not such statements are accurate within the chosen framework, whether or not the chosen framework is consistent and well-developed, whether or not initial premises and axioms are epistemologically compelling, etc.
All such statements about science (or any philosophy) only have meaning from within chosen frameworks. You cannot avoid this.