3 ms·

Interesting. This is the first time I have heard the name. Based on the Wikipedia articles you cited I'm not sure I agree with his criticisms of scientific meth

Interesting. This is the first time I have heard the name. Based on the Wikipedia articles you cited I'm not sure I agree with his criticisms of scientific method. It's not so much that there are alternative methods of achieving knowledge but that scientific theories with robust experimental confirmation and obvious utility can simply be shouted down by people who have political or economic reasons for not accepting them.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago
That's a rather shallow interpretation of his critique and doesn't give proper due to the depth of his argument. It also misrepresents his argument about "achieving knowledge" - which isn't something he argues - rather, that such a concept of coming to some foundational conclusion is actually mythology. It's subtle but important.
- hodgesrm 8y ago
  Since you have read his work, perhaps you could explain how his critique explains things like the anti-vaccination movement? This seems to be a case where scientific success has been sufficiently complete that people forget what it was like before. If enough people stop vaccinating, serious diseases pop back up again. p.s., I'm not arguing that scientific theories are correct in some absolute sense, only that they have proven utility like being able to guide moon missions.
  - AndrewKemendo 8y ago
    Anti-Vaxxer arguments don't relate at all to his critique and your suggestion is a red herring unfortunately. I think the challenge when it comes to having discussions about philosophy of science with people who aren't rigorous or academic about philosophy, is that it can easily be interpreted as anti-science. Feyerabend specifically was unnecessarily harsh with his critique, and somewhat of an outsider, so he attracted more vitriol than was likely warranted. His point about the lack of universal methodological rules across the disciplines of science is a fair critique, which is a statement about scientism at large and the dogmas that form inside of it being insidious. It was decidedly NOT a critique of any particular method or function of science. To the contrary, his point was that Science is too important to try and enforce one methodology where it is incompatible - and would be corrupting.
    - hodgesrm 8y ago
      Thanks, your last paragraph is a nice summary.

AndrewKemendo 8y ago

That's a rather shallow interpretation of his critique and doesn't give proper due to the depth of his argument. It also misrepresents his argument about "achieving knowledge" - which isn't something he argues - rather, that such a concept of coming to some foundational conclusion is actually mythology. It's subtle but important.

hodgesrm 8y ago
Since you have read his work, perhaps you could explain how his critique explains things like the anti-vaccination movement? This seems to be a case where scientific success has been sufficiently complete that people forget what it was like before. If enough people stop vaccinating, serious diseases pop back up again. p.s., I'm not arguing that scientific theories are correct in some absolute sense, only that they have proven utility like being able to guide moon missions.
- AndrewKemendo 8y ago
  Anti-Vaxxer arguments don't relate at all to his critique and your suggestion is a red herring unfortunately. I think the challenge when it comes to having discussions about philosophy of science with people who aren't rigorous or academic about philosophy, is that it can easily be interpreted as anti-science. Feyerabend specifically was unnecessarily harsh with his critique, and somewhat of an outsider, so he attracted more vitriol than was likely warranted. His point about the lack of universal methodological rules across the disciplines of science is a fair critique, which is a statement about scientism at large and the dogmas that form inside of it being insidious. It was decidedly NOT a critique of any particular method or function of science. To the contrary, his point was that Science is too important to try and enforce one methodology where it is incompatible - and would be corrupting.
  - hodgesrm 8y ago
    Thanks, your last paragraph is a nice summary.