I have limited exposure to Feyerabend, but it strikes me that he never understood the scientific method, or at least his radical relativism prevented him from doing so.
For those that are unfamiliar, Feyerabend's thesis on science in society was that although science was once liberatory, it has become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and thus become an ideology in and of itself. Furthermore, science has started to attain some oppressive features, fallaciously positioning itself as the only legitimate vessel for the attainment of truth, like the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, when it is really just one way of attaining truth among many others, like philosophy or religion. — Bacchus
On the so called scientific method, he holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. More than that, the very idea of the operation of science by fixed, universal rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself. — Bacchus
Anyway, I didn't ask about Popper. I'm not interested in his work, nor did I ask for your opinion of Feyerabend, "radical relativism" nor did I request evangelism to the One True Faith of science. I asked for recommendations of books similar to Against Method, and thinkers similar to Feyerabend, if you'd like to say anything other than that I think you should make your own thread. — Bacchus
An excellent rendition of this part of intellectual history, and more, can be found in Alan Chalmers' What is this thing called Science?, which I whole-heartedly recommend. — Banno
And if that is the case, we might as well go on doing what we have been doing - there is no need to change our minds. That is, if anything goes, then everything stays. — Banno
To phrase this as confrontationally as possible - an approach that both Feyerabend and Lakatos might have approved -Following Feyerabend's appraoch to method leads to Donald Trump. — Banno
Why are you changing the topic of discussion? ↪Bacchus
just wants other theorists that are similar to Feyerabend. — darthbarracuda
It is a decent introductory book, but I felt Chalmer's take on Feyerabend was far too short (only a measly seven-or-so pages) and failed to charitably represent Feyerabend's philosophy of science. — darthbarracuda
So, after we follow Feyerabend and reject the notion of an algorithmic scientific method, we can go in several directions, one of which is the left-leaning democratisation of science advocated by Feyerabend himself. — Banno
Why would I, when that would just distract from the point of this thread? — darthbarracuda
Beneath Feyerabend's rhetorical antics lurked a deadly serious theme: the human compulsion to find absolute truths, however noble it may be, often culminates in tyranny. Feyerabend attacked science not because he actually believed it was no more valid than astrology or religion. Quite the contrary. He attacked science because he recognized--and was horrified by--science's vast superiority to other modes of knowledge. His objections to science were moral and political rather than epistemological. He feared that science, precisely because of its enormous power, could become a totalitarian force that crushes all its rivals. — John Horgan"
I too have met several scientists who advocate Popper, but to my mind that's because his ideas represent to them the ideal they like to believe they are enacting, when mostly, they're not. — mcdoodle
Hang on-
So you are saying there is a scientific method that is not algorithmic. A scientific method without rules.
You had best tell us what it is, then. — Banno
...from the thread, yes. Go make another thread if you want to shit on Feyerabend. — darthbarracuda
Which brings us to the delineation of science. — Banno
Nancy Cartwright, Ian Hacking, Isabelle Stengers, Peter Galison, John Dupre, Bruno Latour, Lorraine Daston, Alexandre Koyre. — StreetlightX
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.