Feyerabend and Relativism

[The Shroud of Wally]

I fail to see how this validates the scietific method; you are just laying out premises of what to do or not do. Hardly a theorical justification of anything

[The Shroud of Wally]

"anything can be considered true". Tis something I agree with I suppose. Along philosophical lines there is of course potential for anything

Well, so, so; Its more that nothing can be proven superior to other things, therefore everything is equally valid.

[Four-sided Triangles]

I fail to see how this validates the scietific method;

Sounds like a person problem.

[The Shroud of Wally]

then please, elaborate, How a conjuction of premises which describes the scientific method proves its validity?

Hint; it doesnt.

Its like me saying that biblical study is the valid way to reach the truth and then make some premises like;

God is good;
Good is not bad:
Lieing is bad
God Doesnt lie;
The bible is god´s word;
Gods word doesnt lie;
Therefore, the bible its true.


See? It doesnt prove anything, you are just embarrasing yourself by propousing this as a way of proving validity of a method.

[Norstal]

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.

It kinda is. You might not know this, but scientists use the scientific method. Otherwise, what's the point of such studies? To criticize scientists and then feel smug about it afterwards?

No, the philosophy of science is used to justify what science is, ultimately affecting the people who work in that area. With that in mind, I don't trust someone who hasn't even worked on the field to criticize that field.

[Norstal]

I'm pretty such that the scientific advances in techonology and our overall understanding of the universe in the last century, developments that occured through the use of the scientific method, have validated it's use.

What scientific method? Feyerabend's point was that there has never been any single scientific method that was universally valid, or coherant with the others.

So anything goes because we can't make a method that appease everyone?

Why can't we do that with philosophy? Lots of people don't understand philosophy. Not to mention there's different views on how to look at philosophy.

[Four-sided Triangles]

then please, elaborate, How a conjuction of premises which describes the scientific method proves its validity?

Hint; it doesnt.

Its like me saying that biblical study is the valid way to reach the truth and then make some premises like;

God is good;
Good is not bad:
Lieing is bad
God Doesnt lie;
The bible is god´s word;
Gods word doesnt lie;
Therefore, the bible its true.


See? It doesnt prove anything, you are just embarrasing yourself by propousing this as a way of proving validity of a method.

Except none of my premises is strange or unfounded. They aren't even "self-evident." They are all incontrovertible, and tautologically true.

[Jello Biafra]

Except none of my premises is strange or unfounded. They aren't even "self-evident." They are all incontrovertible, and tautologically true.

I'm not sure that "P3. Any explanation which is neither testable, tautological, or deductible from a testable explanation has an infinitesimal probability" is incontrovertible or tautologically true.

[Hydesland]

I think he has some very good points but I don't completely agree with him.

[Chumblywumbly]

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

It kinda is. You might not know this, but scientists use the scientific method. Otherwise, what's the point of such studies? To criticize scientists and then feel smug about it afterwards?

No, the philosophy of science is used to justify what science is, ultimately affecting the people who work in that area. With that in mind, I don't trust someone who hasn't even worked on the field to criticize that field.

That somewhat misses the point of what Feyerabend, Popper, Kuhn and other philosophers of science are discussing: what the scientific method actually is; how we should go about using it; where such a method is applicable; what exactly we can glean from such a method. It is not criticism of the field per se.

Further to your argument, why should philosophers of science be expert scientists? I don't think philosophers of science should be, can be, or indeed are ignorant of scientific study (and it's worth pointing out that many philosophers of science are also scientists), but it seems that discussing the underpinnings of how we go about scientific investigation does not require one to be a working scientist.

[Betoni]

What scientific method? Feyerabend's point was that there has never been any single scientific method that was universally valid, or coherant with the others.

So anything goes because we can't make a method that appease everyone?

Why can't we do that with philosophy? Lots of people don't understand philosophy. Not to mention there's different views on how to look at philosophy.

The thing is, that "we" do that with philosophy "everyday" to the extent that real scientist don't take philosophy seriously anymore. :roll