It's like saying that I have a green pain gnawing at my brain.  This is not a legitimate claim because it cannot be proven or disproven on the basis of public and repeatable physical evidence.

 This physical evidence is the basis of what we call the INDUCTIVE approach to investigation.  That is, we should carefully observe specific instances (say of pigeons) and then–on the basis of our observations–make cautious generalizations (e.g., that all pigeons can fly.)  This is not an absolute law as it is in Synoptic science, it is an educated guess.  The analyst is prepared for new evidence which might prove his generalization incorrect.  And it is this analytic science which we usually refer to when we talk about science today.

 Notice that we are again dealing with an approach which wants to UNDERSTAND problems, confident that understanding will help us to solve them. In other words, this is another CONTEMPLATIVE approach.

 Conclusion: Both 5th Century BC Synoptic philosophy and 17th Century Analytic philosophy are scientific approaches to solving the great problems in life.  The Synoptic approach uses a DEDUCTIVE methodology and the Analytic approach uses an INDUCTIVE methodology.  Both are more contemplative than activist.

 PRAGMATIC philosophy is different.  It is more interested in TAKING ACTION to solve a problem than in theorizing about it.    PRAGMATIC means PRACTICAL, what works in an actual situation.  This has been called American philosophy, because it is rather new as philosophy goes–dating from the 19th and 20th centuries, and because Americans in general tend to be ACTIVISTS.  That is, Americans tend to want to change the world to make it better, rather than to understand it.  When we have a problem, we think that the right thing to do is whatever best solves the problem for everyone involved.  And that action is justified if in fact it does solve the problem.  For example, we are an egalitarian society, so people in our society do not like to be discriminated against.  In other words, discrimination DOESN'T WORK in our society.  That is, it is wrong.  It causes more harm than good.  Now what we should do is whatever best solves the problem of discrimination.  To solve the problem of racial discrimination in America our Supreme Court passed a law saying that it is wrong and then the courts approved those laws which seemed to have the best chance of ending racial discrimination.   The Federal courts upheld laws which bussed children from white schools (usually in the suburbs) to black schools (inner city) and from black schools to white schools.  This generally infuriated both white and black parents, but the court was confident that it would work to end racial discrimination quickly.  And it turned out historically that the court was generally correct.  A PRAGMATIST would say that the fact that it worked is enough to JUSTIFY bussing.

  The Synoptics in society claim that bussing is unjust, because it violates the rights of individuals to send their children to whatever school they want.  And some Analysts in society said that we have no right to treat blacks as equal to whites until after we had PROVED scientifically that they are in fact equal.  But the Pragmatists point out that if we have to wait until we resolve all problems of justice and scientific proofs, discrimination will continue for ANOTHER two hundred years.