He was an empiricist, meaning he had to make logical or empirical connections for something to make cognitive sense. “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 paths prescribed by logic and may even skip entire groups of operations which would be necessary for a complete exposition of the subject in question. This is valid for everyday thinking, as well as for the mental process of a man of science, 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 involves extracting 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 subject you are studying, then you do not have real knowledge about the subject. Reichenbach refers to the thought processes of scientists as “psychology.” The underlying theme of Reichenbach's philosophy is to prove that the published works of many scientists are usually jargon and not fully supported. Hans Reichenbach says that even if scientists have the missing facts in mind, these are not always represented in the work they present. This poses a huge problem; society is therefore unable to contribute to such discoveries, as it may lack fundamental facts essential to promoting the ideas of scientists. In my opinion, I believe that many scientists intentionally omit certain psychological dynamics in an experiment. A good example is that of Leeuwenhoek. Leeuwenhoek took this to the extreme by even lying to his colleagues about his work. I think this is a common practice because a