3 ms·
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 scien
by 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 agoAnti-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 agoThanks, your last paragraph is a nice summary.