He was an empiricist, meaning he had to make logical or empirical connections for something to be cognitively meaningful. “There is a big difference between the system of logical interconnections of thought and the actual way in which thought processes are carried out. The psychological operations of thought are rather vague and fluctuating processes; they almost never stick to the ways prescribed by logic and can even skip entire groups of operations that would be necessary for a complete exposition of the topic in question. This applies to the thinking of everyday life, as well as to the mental process of a man of science, who is faced with the task of finding logical interconnections between divergent ideas about newly observed facts." This quote from Reichenbach describes a profound problem in science. This problem is taking scientific knowledge from a scientist's ideas and being able to present them to the public. Reichenbach believed that if you are unable to talk about the topic you are studying, then you have no true knowledge of the topic. Reichenbach describes the mental processes of scientists as “psychology.” The underlying theme behind Reichenbach's philosophy is to demonstrate that the works of many scientists that have been published are usually jargon and not fully supported. Hans Reichenbach states that even if scientists have the missing facts in mind, these are not always represented in the work they present. This poses a big problem; the company is therefore unable to help with such findings because it may be missing fundamental facts that are essential to furthering this scientist's ideas. In my opinion, many scientists purposely leave out some psychological dynamics in an experiment. A great example is Leeuwenhoek. Leeuwenhoek took the situation to the extreme, even lying to colleagues about his work. I believe this is a common practice because a