The method of science or reflective inquiry is a method devoid of personal aspirations and commitments; the method nurtures doubt and uncertainty and relies on the best of evidence to test, accept, modify, or reject the probable validity of a hypothesis and thus forming beliefs. Cohen and Nagel in their book assert that the scientific method proves to be the best method, as it addresses the faults existing in the method of tenacity, authority, and intuition, while providing for further advantages. In my response I will argue to defend the conclusion that indeed the method of scientific or reflective inquiry is the best method. Since the method engages us to question and doubt, we are continuously involved in the process of finding and applying to evidence to strengthen the validity of our hypothesis. It follows then this process of continuous improvement makes sure that our hypothesis does not become stagnant and reduces the margin of error. Furthermore, since the method does not involve personal aspirations, commitments and relies on the best evidence; hence, the method is entirely result based and unbiased.

Constant nurturing of doubt and reflection to strengthen our hypothesis requires that we do not invest a position of infallibility in our sources of authority. Therefore, the result is entirely based on evidence and the differing position and bias of authoritative figures and written material is not considered while measuring the validity of the hypothesis and there arises stable belief.  Science provides holders of different beliefs and position a common ground to decide a validity of a hypothesis through the availability of evidence alone. This common ground of validating the hypothesis through evidence alone, enables us to overcome the problem of difference in the method of authority. Tenacity imposes on us a conservative position where we are reluctant to change our beliefs in face of new evidence. Science enables us to overcome this problem by nurturing doubt and repeatedly questioning our beliefs through evidence. Intuition imposes on us the problem that a statement seems self-evident to one because of their disposition, trends and training. Science tells us that only the best of evidence is required to establish the validity of a hypothesis and that personal dispositions, trends and do not matter.