Feyerabend and Relativism

[Meryuma]

It seems that people on this thread are strawmanning Feyerabend. I haven't read him, but from my impression of him it seems that he was critiquing the idea of a unified "scientific method", claiming that real advancement of knowledge comes from challenging existing paradigms, and promoting the idea that the definition of "science" is socially constructed.

It also seems that Norstal thinks that ad absurdum is when you say something nonsensical. It's not, look it up.

[Free Soviets]

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.

are you seriously going to deny that the natural gas theory of bunsen burners does not represent a paradigm shift from bunsen's own 'coal gas' theory of bunsen burners?

[Maurepas]

I thought this was going to be about "Freya" by the Sword, I am teh disappoint.

[Moogs World]

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.

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." — Richard P. Feynman.

With the ongoing efforts by creationists in the U.S. to get religion into the science classroom the demarcation problem for one takes on great importance. Besides all that, its just a very interesting subject for some.

[Four-sided Triangles]

"Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds." — Richard P. Feynman.

With the ongoing efforts by creationists in the U.S. to get religion into the science classroom the demarcation problem for one takes on great importance. Besides all that, its just a very interesting subject for some.

Philosophy can be used to construct a rigorous defense of scientific methodology against those who would seek to undermine objectivity and reason for whatever ends.

[The Shroud of Wally]

Is anyone here familiar with Paul Feyerabend?

Yes.

is quite literally "anything goes" when it comes to what is considered valid science and what isn't.

No, not about "valid science"; but as valid type of knowlages, he stands for the inconmensurability (meaning that one isnt superior to another, as there is on way that they could be compared) of types of knowlages.

Did he really believe that all ideas were equally scientific?

No, he didnt spoke about Science, but Validity.

Did he take it further and believe that all ideas were equally true?

No, they are equally valid, not equally true.

s he as batshit crazy as my cursory readings of his positions seem to suggest?

Not in the least, He was a genius to think of this.

(sorry, but I have only read the OP)

[Four-sided Triangles]

No, not about "valid science"; but as valid type of knowlages, he stands for the inconmensurability (meaning that one isnt superior to another, as there is on way that they could be compared) of types of knowlages.

What actually counts as knowledge though? Anything? Even if it's not actually true?

Did he really believe that all ideas were equally scientific?

No, he didnt spoke about Science, but Validity.

Did he take it further and believe that all ideas were equally true?

No, they are equally valid, not equally true.

How is validity being defined here?

Not in the least, He was a genius to think of this.

To think of "anything goes"? Isn't that sort of thinking quite old?

[The Shroud of Wally]

What actually counts as knowledge though? Anything? Even if it's not actually true?

He was speaking about types of knowlage; understood as methods to arriving a vlaid conclusion. not "knowlage" in the sense as a conclusion. He cares for the method used, and its validity (or lack thereof).

How is validity being defined here?

As in logic. A reasoning or method is valid or invalid. But He claims that we cannot know the validity of Science; and we cannot know the validity of other types of knowlages, therefore they are both equally valid from our perspective; Therefore, they are inconmesurable. (none is superior to the other).

To think of "anything goes"? Isn't that sort of thinking quite old?

"anything goes" isnt his premise, but his conclusion.

There is nothing new under the sun; old positions are retaken everyday with different arguments.

[Four-sided Triangles]

He was speaking about types of knowlage; understood as methods to arriving a vlaid conclusion. not "knowlage" in the sense as a conclusion. He cares for the method used, and its validity (or lack thereof).

As in logic. A reasoning or method is valid or invalid. But He claims that we cannot know the validity of Science; and we cannot know the validity of other types of knowlages, therefore they are both equally valid from our perspective; Therefore, they are inconmesurable. (none is superior to the other).

I would say that a method could be "valid" as long as it's internally self-consistent, but I wouldn't call it valid in an epistemological sense unless the method had a reasonable guarantee that it converged to truth about reality.

[The Shroud of Wally]

I wouldn't call it valid in an epistemological sense unless the method had a reasonable guarantee that it converged to truth about reality.

"The Thruth about reality" cant be reached, and if it can be reached, how could you know that you have reached it?

I would say that a method could be "valid" as long as it's internally self-consistent

And doesnt fall into fallacious and/or invalid arguments.

Which Science and every other type of knowlage does acording to Feyerabend

[Four-sided Triangles]

"The Thruth about reality" cant be reached,

You can't assert that without proof.

and if it can be reached, how could you know that you have reached it?

You can know in a probabilistic sense. There are always solipsistic objections, but if you can guarantee almost sure convergence that's good enough.

[The Shroud of Wally]

The notion about "absolute truths" has been abandoned long ago by science and philosofy; humans cant reach this always truth and objective truths, but they have to rely on provisory truth that serve their pourpouse until they are changed by other provisory thruths.

This is the case Since Popper

[The Shroud of Wally]

But we are going off topic;

The Point of Feyerabend is that The Scientific method (the escence of science) cannot be proven valid by any means.

[Seperates]

But we are going off topic;

The Point of Feyerabend is that The Scientific method (the escence of science) cannot be proven valid by any means.

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.

[The Shroud of Wally]

developments that occured through the use of the scientific method, have validated it's use.

Are you claiming that the scientific method is valid becosue it was proved several times; and hwen applied correctely and all the variables were controled it gave good results?

Do you understand that you are basically validating the scientific method by using the scietific method?
Which would mean that you are doing a circular argument. Which is by its very nature invalid; So you have failed to validate scientific method.

[Trotskylvania]

But we are going off topic;

The Point of Feyerabend is that The Scientific method (the escence of science) cannot be proven valid by any means.

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.

[Four-sided Triangles]

The notion about "absolute truths" has been abandoned long ago by science and philosofy;

Incorrect. There's no coherent difference between "truth" and "absolute truth." It may be a popular dichotomy, but it's bullshit. Something is either true or it's not. There's no third category called "absolutely true."

humans cant reach this always truth and objective truths, but they have to rely on provisory truth that serve their pourpouse until they are changed by other provisory thruths.

Then they aren't really truths to begin with. They're just approximations.

Also, what about mathematical proofs? What about truths which are discrete? The concept of provisional truth tending toward greater and greater accuracy only works for things which lie on a continuum. Things like the topology of space, or the symmetries of physics are not continuum claims. They are discrete claims which cannot be arbitrarily close to truth. A torus and a sphere are definite, distinct creatures. There's no way to change from one to the other in a continuous manner.

Also, the notion of approximate truths is something within science to begin with. It's like you're assuming the scientific method ahead of time.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Are you claiming that the scientific method is valid becosue it was proved several times; and hwen applied correctely and all the variables were controled it gave good results?

Do you understand that you are basically validating the scientific method by using the scietific method?
Which would mean that you are doing a circular argument. Which is by its very nature invalid; So you have failed to validate scientific method.

No, he's not trying to validate it through itself. He's trying to validate it pragmatically. It's not the path I take, but it's also not circular.

[Seperates]

developments that occured through the use of the scientific method, have validated it's use.

Are you claiming that the scientific method is valid becosue it was proved several times; and hwen applied correctely and all the variables were controled it gave good results?

Do you understand that you are basically validating the scientific method by using the scietific method?
Which would mean that you are doing a circular argument. Which is by its very nature invalid; So you have failed to validate scientific method.

Well, no... I'm using the success of the scientific method to validate the scientific method. It's not the same as circular reasoning. if the scientific method didn't work, then there would obviously be no progress being made and we wouldn't have seen the sudden acceleration in technology. And therefore the method would not be a valid method of testing and validating hypothesises. Practical and simple really.

[The Shroud of Wally]

There's no coherent difference between "truth" and "absolute truth." It may be a popular dichotomy, but it's bullshit. Something is either true or it's not. There's no third category called "absolutely true."

Not so simple, modern philosofy doesnt accept an objective nad universal truth; thruth is subjective ot the person, think of this example; Cows can see 2 primary colors, While humans can see 3. This means that there are colors we see that cows see differently; Which one of us hold the "truth" humans or cows? or neither?

Then they aren't really truths to begin with. They're just approximations.

They are the "truth" that was arrived at the moment, yes.

Also, what about mathematical proofs?

Math is only true if you accept its basic dogmas and conventions.

the notion of approximate truths is something within science to begin with. It's like you're assuming the scientific method ahead of time.

Its accepted by science, but its not exclusively on science; for example, they can be found in ancient greek philosofy.

[The Shroud of Wally]

Well, no... I'm using the success of the scientific method to validate the scientific method. It's not the same as circular reasoning.

It is; you are using the scietific method to demostrate that the scientific method works.

You are saying that becosue it has "work" several times in the past, it will "work" in the future.
That my friend; is applying the scientific method.

[Jello Biafra]

What actually counts as knowledge though? Anything? Even if it's not actually true?

I suppose that a statement like "Bob is a human" conveys knowledge even if Bob isn't a human, since one has to know things about what Bob is and what humanness is in order to determine whether or not the statement is true.

[Seperates]

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.

Well, no... but that was never the point of the "Original (i.e. Baconian) Scientific Method." The basic theory is that you want to see why/if something occurs when/if/because something else happens. So, you eliminate as many variables as you can, test using a control and expirimental group, and see what the results are. Then, taking those results, you do the expieriment again, and see if the same result occurs. Then, depending on how many varibles you were not able to eliminate, you test it again for those variables to see if they cause the event to occur. Crossing the results of however many expieriments occur, you can fairly accurately detirmine the cause of a certain outcome.

And this has been the fairly vague standard for any scientific discovery/observation that has ever been made in history. That's not to say that you cannot discover something without the use of the method, but it is almost always, at some point along the line, used to verify the discovery or streamline the process.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Not so simple, modern philosofy doesnt accept an objective nad universal truth;

Wrong. Maybe in the circle of postmodernist "philosophers" that you read, but wrong everywhere else.

thruth is subjective ot the person, think of this example;

Truth that is subjective is not real truth.

Cows can see 2 primary colors, While humans can see 3. This means that there are colors we see that cows see differently; Which one of us hold the "truth" humans or cows? or neither?

Come on, this is a basic fallacy called a category error. Perception of reality and reality are not the same thing.

They are the "truth" that was arrived at the moment, yes.

No such thing. Something is either actually true, or it isn't. In continuum cases, something can be false but really, really close to truth. In discrete cases, even this is not possible.

Math is only true if you accept its basic dogmas and conventions.

Nonsense. Axioms are not dogmas. Mathematics doesn't work that way, and hasn't since the 19th century. We no longer look at axioms as self-evident truths. Instead, axioms are just the basic concepts that form the logical basis of a particular structure. There's nothing "self-evident" about the associativity of group operators. It's just part of the definition of a group. You can reject it if you like, but then you're not dealing with group theory anymore. You can reject any axioms and make up any axioms you like in mathematics, so long as the system you wind up with is self-consistent. Nothing requires the acceptance of self-evident notions. We're not doing math in Euclid's time anymore.

Its accepted by science, but its not exclusively on science; for example, they can be found in ancient greek philosofy.

Weren't Ancient Greeks primarily concerned with the use of reason to derive EXACTLY rather than approximately true conceptions of reality?

P.S. Why is your spelling so bad?

[Four-sided Triangles]

It is; you are using the scietific method to demostrate that the scientific method works.

You are saying that becosue it has "work" several times in the past, it will "work" in the future.
That my friend; is applying the scientific method.

No it's not. The scientific method is more than just induction.