Feyerabend and Relativism

[Four-sided Triangles]

Is anyone here familiar with Paul Feyerabend? He was noted for the position of epistemological anarchism which, to my understanding, is quite literally "anything goes" when it comes to what is considered valid science and what isn't.

Did he really believe that all ideas were equally scientific? Did he take it further and believe that all ideas were equally true? Is he as batshit crazy as my cursory readings of his positions seem to suggest?

[Four-sided Triangles]

Well, I figured it would never be popular, but damn.

[Katganistan]

Perhaps a title that actually identifies the topic as a type of anarchism might help -- most people scanning the titles won't open it if they have no idea what you're driving at.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Perhaps a title that actually identifies the topic as a type of anarchism might help -- most people scanning the titles won't open it if they have no idea what you're driving at.

It's not a type of anarchism. It's an epistemology, not a political philosophy.

[Katganistan]

Then clarify it in your title.

[Norstal]

The theory advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology, and considers the dominance of science in society authoritarian and unjustified. Promulgation of the theory earned Feyerabend the title of “the worst enemy of science” from his detractors.

I just love how someone who's not a scientist are telling how scientists are supposed to do their jobs. Love it. Maybe I should become philosopher of Nationstates Moderation next.

He's batshit crazy. Seems like he wants to take out falsifiability out of science. There's no more to talk about as the scientific method is a valid method in discovering the truth. Anyone can do it.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Then clarify it in your title.

It was kinda obvious from the OP and from the fact that Feyerabend was well know as a philosopher of science.

[Four-sided Triangles]

This thread's a miserable failure.

[Seperates]

This thread's a miserable failure.

Hey, I still love you FT. Not all of them can be winners.

And on the guy? Needs to take the time to actually read what the Baconian Method actually entails, and why it works.
I wish more people were versed in the philosophy of science... but it's hard enough to get people who are actually versed in science..

[Free Soviets]

He's batshit crazy. Seems like he wants to take out falsifiability out of science. There's no more to talk about as the scientific method is a valid method in discovering the truth. Anyone can do it.

actually, he claims that science never used falsificationism in the first place. and couldn't. there is argument to this effect, though it can probably be avoided by watering down falsificationism. but its not exactly lunacy.

oh, and

I just love how someone who's not a scientist are telling how scientists are supposed to do their jobs. Love it. Maybe I should become philosopher of Nationstates Moderation next.

wanna know who it was that put the idea of falsifiability as key to demarcating science and non-science into your head? karl popper, philosopher of science.

[Trotskylvania]

I think that a bit of Feyerabend is both healthy and necessary. Science's position in modern society is pretty clearly overprivileged, and the epistemological claims that are often made by scientists, both in the "hard" sciences and the social sciences, are often philosophically tenuous.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I think that a bit of Feyerabend is both healthy and necessary. Science's position in modern society is pretty clearly overprivileged,

I don't think it's clear at all. Explain.

the epistemological claims that are often made by scientists, both in the "hard" sciences and the social sciences, are often philosophically tenuous.

Such as?

[Trotskylvania]

I think that a bit of Feyerabend is both healthy and necessary. Science's position in modern society is pretty clearly overprivileged,

I don't think it's clear at all. Explain.

the epistemological claims that are often made by scientists, both in the "hard" sciences and the social sciences, are often philosophically tenuous.

Such as?

I would feel a whole lot better about the claims made by the academy as a whole with regards to the methodology of science if they could provide any evidence of a unifying scientific method. The fact that there never has been a universal scientific method was one of Feyerabend's central points:

In spite of tremendous advances that have been made in the philosophy of science, the academy worldwide is stuck in the outmoded Popperian notion of falsification. As T.S. Kuhn noted, if scientists actually strictly observed Popper's criteria, they'd never get any science done at all. What's worse, is that many modern scientists are simply philosophically illiterate.

Clearly we need to introduce a little anarchy in the academy.

[Moogs World]

I have an interest in philosophy of science but havent read Feyerabend yet. He is on the reading list. I have heard it said that he made purposefully exaggerated arguments in order to engage further debate. I think that the most important element of inquiry is honesty and that pseudoscience is characterised by distortion and selective use of evidence. I also think that falsification is an important criteria for a reliable narrative but there will be things that fall outside like string theory which should not be thrown in with pseudoscience.

[Trotskylvania]

I have an interest in philosophy of science but havent read Feyerabend yet. He is on the reading list. I have heard it said that he made purposefully exaggerated arguments in order to engage further debate. I think that the most important element of inquiry is honesty and that pseudoscience is characterised by distortion and selective use of evidence. I also think that falsification is an important criteria for a reliable narrative but there will be things that fall outside like string theory which should not be thrown in with pseudoscience.

If you haven't heard of it yet, add Thomas Samuel Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to your reading list; it's a seminal work int he philosophy of science, though you may not like what he has to say about falsification.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I would feel a whole lot better about the claims made by the academy as a whole with regards to the methodology of science if they could provide any evidence of a unifying scientific method. The fact that there never has been a universal scientific method was one of Feyerabend's central points:

In spite of tremendous advances that have been made in the philosophy of science, the academy worldwide is stuck in the outmoded Popperian notion of falsification. As T.S. Kuhn noted, if scientists actually strictly observed Popper's criteria, they'd never get any science done at all. What's worse, is that many modern scientists are simply philosophically illiterate.

Clearly we need to introduce a little anarchy in the academy.

There's the notion of verifiability as well. Really, you can categorize all propositions epistemically speaking, and then invent a systematic set of criteria for when and where various categories are allowed to be asserted as known or not. The problem is that Popperian criteria accurately describe established science rather than science on the fringes, where determinations are made about things for which no tests are yet available.

Take the debate about string theory vs. loop quantum gravity. With no physical evidence that readily distinguishes them, falsifiability is not really meaningful, and most arguments are instead philosophical. Both are falsifiable, in that both could be proven false if general relativity were refuted. However, there are no known ways to distinguish them in falsifiability.

I think that there's plenty of philosophically literate scientists, at least in the field of theoretical physics.

I see nothing here that demands "anything goes" rather than just adopting a more rigorous, systematic approach to epistemic categories.

[Four-sided Triangles]

If you haven't heard of it yet, add Thomas Samuel Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to your reading list; it's a seminal work int he philosophy of science, though you may not like what he has to say about falsification.

I don't like what he had to say about paradigm shifts, honestly. He almost made it sound like they happen for no other reason than new kids on the block deciding to rebel against their parents.

[Moogs World]

I have an interest in philosophy of science but havent read Feyerabend yet. He is on the reading list. I have heard it said that he made purposefully exaggerated arguments in order to engage further debate. I think that the most important element of inquiry is honesty and that pseudoscience is characterised by distortion and selective use of evidence. I also think that falsification is an important criteria for a reliable narrative but there will be things that fall outside like string theory which should not be thrown in with pseudoscience.

If you haven't heard of it yet, add Thomas Samuel Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions to your reading list; it's a seminal work int he philosophy of science, though you may not like what he has to say about falsification.

Absolutely a must read and I have read it. I kind of enjoy the frustration of reading philosophy of science in that there are so many problems raised with attempts to define what science is and how it should be done, while there clearly is something epistemically special about it - it works! I am leaning towards a pragmatic view of science and ideas of "truth" about the world.

[Sovereign Spirits]

I would feel a whole lot better about the claims made by the academy as a whole with regards to the methodology of science if they could provide any evidence of a unifying scientific method. The fact that there never has been a universal scientific method was one of Feyerabend's central points:

In spite of tremendous advances that have been made in the philosophy of science, the academy worldwide is stuck in the outmoded Popperian notion of falsification. As T.S. Kuhn noted, if scientists actually strictly observed Popper's criteria, they'd never get any science done at all. What's worse, is that many modern scientists are simply philosophically illiterate.

Clearly we need to introduce a little anarchy in the academy.

Sounds like Feyerabend was onto something. The zeal with which some will elevate specific persons in the scientific community to nearly god-like status, and by which they pursue a long train of formulas before the rails are even laid much less staked, is probably a symptom arising out of the figurative disease of an ideological two-party system.

Science at its core and in its purest form is welcome and necessary, as is spirituality at its core and its purest form. Just like churches and Religion have perverted the good that arises from spirituality by using it as a tool for control and brainwashing, so too has the State when it comes to science.

The most important aspect is Truth, at every step of the way. You will never reach it by climbing a ladder of lies, and illusion which makes you think you're getting closer when, at best, you're going nowhere at all. Generally, this means not being thick-headed about how accurate or infallible your particular form of truth might be.

Today, our search for truth is severely hampered. We grow up under the bias of the secular or the religious. It is this that leads us to believe that we are better-informed now than we were previously. It is too bad that the misinformation is as rampant as ever, and much of it arises from misplaced trust. At some point, both the secular and the religious stop checking their sources and simply become parrots, if they aren't already. When they bother to go back and check, their rose-colored glasses hide the errors.

Nobody is omniscient, nobody is unbiased, and nobody holds a monopoly on truth. And because I feel the need to clarify, that includes you and I. Get your nose out of the books once in a while and experience the Earth. What is it that tells you your explanation is the correct one or "more right/less wrong" than another? I think when you get right down to it, anything you don't experience for yourself and discover the exact cause or source of with 100% accuracy and absolutely no errors, is basically an act of trust and giving someone or something the benefit of the doubt.

[Moogs World]

I would feel a whole lot better about the claims made by the academy as a whole with regards to the methodology of science if they could provide any evidence of a unifying scientific method. The fact that there never has been a universal scientific method was one of Feyerabend's central points:

In spite of tremendous advances that have been made in the philosophy of science, the academy worldwide is stuck in the outmoded Popperian notion of falsification. As T.S. Kuhn noted, if scientists actually strictly observed Popper's criteria, they'd never get any science done at all. What's worse, is that many modern scientists are simply philosophically illiterate.

Clearly we need to introduce a little anarchy in the academy.

Sounds like Feyerabend was onto something. The zeal with which some will elevate specific persons in the scientific community to nearly god-like status, and by which they pursue a long train of formulas before the rails are even laid much less staked, is probably a symptom arising out of the figurative disease of an ideological two-party system.

Science at its core and in its purest form is welcome and necessary, as is spirituality at its core and its purest form. Just like churches and Religion have perverted the good that arises from spirituality by using it as a tool for control and brainwashing, so too has the State when it comes to science.

The most important aspect is Truth, at every step of the way. You will never reach it by climbing a ladder of lies, and illusion which makes you think you're getting closer when, at best, you're going nowhere at all. Generally, this means not being thick-headed about how accurate or infallible your particular form of truth might be.

Today, our search for truth is severely hampered. We grow up under the bias of the secular or the religious. It is this that leads us to believe that we are better-informed now than we were previously. It is too bad that the misinformation is as rampant as ever, and much of it arises from misplaced trust. At some point, both the secular and the religious stop checking their sources and simply become parrots, if they aren't already. When they bother to go back and check, their rose-colored glasses hide the errors.

Nobody is omniscient, nobody is unbiased, and nobody holds a monopoly on truth. And because I feel the need to clarify, that includes you and I. Get your nose out of the books once in a while and experience the Earth. What is it that tells you your explanation is the correct one or "more right/less wrong" than another? I think when you get right down to it, anything you don't experience for yourself and discover the exact cause or source of with 100% accuracy and absolutely no errors, is basically an act of trust and giving someone or something the benefit of the doubt.

How do you measure the truth value of an idea? How do you know a given idea is closer than any other to being description of the world that exists beyond our senses?

[Four-sided Triangles]

Sounds like Feyerabend was onto something. The zeal with which some will elevate specific persons in the scientific community to nearly god-like status, and by which they pursue a long train of formulas before the rails are even laid much less staked, is probably a symptom arising out of the figurative disease of an ideological two-party system.

Science at its core and in its purest form is welcome and necessary, as is spirituality at its core and its purest form. Just like churches and Religion have perverted the good that arises from spirituality by using it as a tool for control and brainwashing, so too has the State when it comes to science.

The most important aspect is Truth, at every step of the way. You will never reach it by climbing a ladder of lies, and illusion which makes you think you're getting closer when, at best, you're going nowhere at all. Generally, this means not being thick-headed about how accurate or infallible your particular form of truth might be.

Today, our search for truth is severely hampered. We grow up under the bias of the secular or the religious. It is this that leads us to believe that we are better-informed now than we were previously. It is too bad that the misinformation is as rampant as ever, and much of it arises from misplaced trust. At some point, both the secular and the religious stop checking their sources and simply become parrots, if they aren't already. When they bother to go back and check, their rose-colored glasses hide the errors.

Nobody is omniscient, nobody is unbiased, and nobody holds a monopoly on truth. And because I feel the need to clarify, that includes you and I. Get your nose out of the books once in a while and experience the Earth. What is it that tells you your explanation is the correct one or "more right/less wrong" than another? I think when you get right down to it, anything you don't experience for yourself and discover the exact cause or source of with 100% accuracy and absolutely no errors, is basically an act of trust and giving someone or something the benefit of the doubt.

So how many scientists do you actually know?

[Norstal]

This thread's a miserable failure.

Hey, I still love you FT. Not all of them can be winners.

And on the guy? Needs to take the time to actually read what the Baconian Method actually entails, and why it works.
I wish more people were versed in the philosophy of science... but it's hard enough to get people who are actually versed in science..

Mmmmmm bacon.

No, I get you. The philosophy of science is great stuff. This guy however, is just a raving lunatic. Probably never had done any scientific work.

[Norstal]

I would feel a whole lot better about the claims made by the academy as a whole with regards to the methodology of science if they could provide any evidence of a unifying scientific method. The fact that there never has been a universal scientific method was one of Feyerabend's central points:

In spite of tremendous advances that have been made in the philosophy of science, the academy worldwide is stuck in the outmoded Popperian notion of falsification. As T.S. Kuhn noted, if scientists actually strictly observed Popper's criteria, they'd never get any science done at all. What's worse, is that many modern scientists are simply philosophically illiterate.

Clearly we need to introduce a little anarchy in the academy.

Sounds like Feyerabend was onto something. The zeal with which some will elevate specific persons in the scientific community to nearly god-like status, and by which they pursue a long train of formulas before the rails are even laid much less staked, is probably a symptom arising out of the figurative disease of an ideological two-party system.

I wish there's a program to detect fallacies or something. And whenever you make one, you won't be able to post it.

Let's see how many we can count from this one alone.

Red herring (two-party system?).
Strawman (zealotry has nothing to do with the method itself).
Absurdum (what?).

Science at its core and in its purest form is welcome and necessary, as is spirituality at its core and its purest form. Just like churches and Religion have perverted the good that arises from spirituality by using it as a tool for control and brainwashing, so too has the State when it comes to science.

Strawman (the "State" has nothing to do with the scientific method. MIT, Caltech, and the most prestigious universities are private).
Absurdum (what?).

The most important aspect is Truth, at every step of the way. You will never reach it by climbing a ladder of lies, and illusion which makes you think you're getting closer when, at best, you're going nowhere at all. Generally, this means not being thick-headed about how accurate or infallible your particular form of truth might be.

Contradiction (Scientific Method is a way to find the Truth, along with falsifiability).
Ignorance implied from contradiction (you don't know what the Scientific Method is).
Absurdum (you vomited nonsense all over this post).

Today, our search for truth is severely hampered. We grow up under the bias of the secular or the religious. It is this that leads us to believe that we are better-informed now than we were previously. It is too bad that the misinformation is as rampant as ever, and much of it arises from misplaced trust. At some point, both the secular and the religious stop checking their sources and simply become parrots, if they aren't already. When they bother to go back and check, their rose-colored glasses hide the errors.

Red herring (ignorance is not the fault of scientists).
Ad Hominem (durr hurr, I'm better than them because I picked a "third-way").
Red herring (has nothing to do with the topic).
Absurdum (again, more nonsense. Do you try to read your post before hitting that "Submit" button?).

Nobody is omniscient, nobody is unbiased, and nobody holds a monopoly on truth. And because I feel the need to clarify, that includes you and I. Get your nose out of the books once in a while and experience the Earth. What is it that tells you your explanation is the correct one or "more right/less wrong" than another? I think when you get right down to it, anything you don't experience for yourself and discover the exact cause or source of with 100% accuracy and absolutely no errors, is basically an act of trust and giving someone or something the benefit of the doubt.

Red herring (no one claimed to be omniscient).
Strawman (check the proofs they have and try to prove them wrong? If you can't then they're probably right).
Relativistic fallacy (yeah mate, I'm sure we need to invent a time machine to prove dinosaur exists ).
Probabilistic error (nothing is 100% accurate).

There. Proof that you don't understand science. I hope you learn more about it before you try to spew more lies. Better yet, do try to understand what epistemology anarchism is. I'll give you a hint: has nothing to do with politics.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Still want a bit more discussion here.

[Chumblywumbly]

I just love how someone who's not a scientist are telling how scientists are supposed to do their jobs. Love it. Maybe I should become philosopher of Nationstates Moderation next.

Discussing the theoretical underpinnings of the scientific method is not dictating how one should light a Bunsen burner.