I have not encountered any scientist who follows, or credits her discoveries to following Feyerabend. The opposite is true of Popper. Several Nobel Prize winners attribute his method to their discoveries.

Furthermore, there may have been advances to Popper's method in the service of one of the most difficult areas of scientific research, in this brilliant paper. https://arxiv.org/abs/1508.02048. I have not encountered any similar progress with Feyerabend.

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.

I'm aware of Popper, but I can't say that I give much credence to his work. I could probably write a book on my problems of his theory of falsifiability, not to mention his political philosophy, which I not only find naïve but extremely undesirable in goal and outcome.

Saying that Popper is "right" (if such a thing exist) because he inspired Nobel Prize winners is like saying that Augustine of Hippo is right because he inspired many priests and popes, which is a particularly apt comparison given the Popperian treatment of science as the One True Faith. The fact that people who have been given medals, or who may be respected by their peers like or dislike him isn't an argument for or against him, appeals to authority and popularity are fallacious. However, if you'd like to go down that road, Popper is not very popular in even the most painfully analytical of philosophy faculties, let alone outside of the English speaking world, that doesn't mean anything, but you seem to equate popularity with correctness, so there's that.

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 someone with limited exposure, you sure seem confident making broad statements. However, that fits, as crusaders "against relativism" and "for objectivity" seem to make a habit of passing off opinions as fact and pretending that constructs are just natural occurrences instead of constructs.




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.

I'm aware of Popper, but I can't say that I give much credence to his work. I could probably write a book on my problems of his theory of falsifiability, — Bacchus

So why don't you give a few examples of your problems with Popper's "theory of falsifiability"?

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

You will find that this statement is controversial on this forum. There are many here who do think that science provides a privileged view of truth.

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

Ok, but that doesn't mean that the idea of the scientific method isn't of value. One of the reasons science is so powerful is that it provides methods that can be applied consistently.

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

I don't get it. @tom's post seemed pretty responsive to me. You, on the other hand, seem comfortable basing your counter-arguments on snarky condescension. Is that what they teach you in your highfalutin high level studies of philosophy and literary theory? That's not philosophy, it's rhetoric, which is fine. Just don't pretend it's something more.

There is no viable alternative to the scientific method when it comes to empirical knowledge.

Historical perspective...

Consider Popper's students Feyerabend and Imre Lakatos. Much of Feyerabend's work is a critique of Lakatos as much as of Popper. Lakatos can be seen as attempting to reconcile Popper with Kuhn. Feyerabend can be seen as taking Lakatos and Kuhn seriously, with the consequent rejection of method as pivotal to scientific advancement.

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.

The most telling criticism of Feyerabend is that, if we follow him in accepting that methodologicaly anything goes, then it does not matter what we do.

And if that is the case, we might as well go on doing what we have been doing - there is no reason to change our approach.

That is, if anything goes, then everything stays.

Feyerabend, rather than being an agent for social change, becomes and agent of conservatism.

Now the consequences of this are interesting. Feyerabend is one of the paradigmatic thinkers for relativist notions of truth, which have outed themselves in recent years, first taking hold in left-leaning thinking, but now being adopted, quite expediently, by the right; hence we hear talk of post truth from Trump and friends.

To phrase this as confrontationally as possible - an approach that both Feyerabend and Lakatos might have approved - Following Feyerabend's approach to method leads to Donald Trump.

:P

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

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.

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

On the contrary, I believe Feyerabend was all about change. To say that since Feyerabend disapproved of the hegemony of science means that he approved of traditional modes of thinking would be false. Living in a free society entails using this freedom in a responsible and intelligent way. For Feyerabend, freely choosing to utilize science is far superior than simply going into science because society has already chosen it for you, even if in the end the results are the same.

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

No.

So why don't you give a few examples of your problems with Popper's "theory of falsifiability"? — tom

Why are you changing the topic of discussion? just wants other theorists that are similar to Feyerabend.

Why are you changing the topic of discussion? ↪Bacchus
just wants other theorists that are similar to Feyerabend. — darthbarracuda

OK, so why don't you give a few examples of where Feyerabend's theory was applied fruitfully?

Feyerabend thought that by rejecting the hegemony of method he would free science to become a source of much wider social good. His error, as with much of left thinking, was to not take into account those who are self-serving rather than serving the betterment of others.

So yes, Feyerabend is about change, and Feyerabend certainly did not simply wish to defend tradition - quite the opposite. And yes, living in a free society entails using this freedom in a responsible and intelligent way. He very much wanted to make science responsive and open.

Unfortunately these desires for social betterment are distinct from the methodological critique presented.

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.

But another direction is to use the anti-methodological rhetoric to bind science even closer to corporate and personal needs. If there is no proper way to do science, then you can do it to serve my special interests.

OK, so why don't you give a few examples of where Feyerabend's theory was applied fruitfully? — tom

Why would I, when that would just distract from the point of this thread?

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

I agree.

But given @Bacchus request, I hope you might agree that it would be an ideal read for him. Bacchus requested books by authors with similar ideas to Feyerabend; that's Lakatos and Kuhn; but he also ought understand the background, and hence have at least a glancing understanding of Falsificationism and the philosophical search for an answer to the problem of induction.

Chalmer's book would be ideal.

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

Precisely, he did not understand the Scientific Method. It is not an alogorithm!

Why would I, when that would just distract from the point of this thread? — darthbarracuda

Examples of Feyereband in action is a distraction?

Oddly enough, I still think of Feyerabend as pro-science. He began as a scientific realist and his ideas ravelled or unravelled as he reflected on that. His last happy marriage was to a physicist. This is from a piece John Horgan wrote about him for Scientific American:

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"

It seems odd to me to want 'more with similar ideas to' Feyerabend. That was then, this is now. Much of science is stunning, if every bit as hotch-potch in its practices as Feyerabend alleged. Some of it like neuroscience has greatly exaggerated claims based on too little sound evidence or thinking.

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.

Precisely, he did not understand the Scientific Method. It is not an alogorithm! — tom

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.

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

The most curious case I am aware of is the use of falsification in defining science in McLean v. Arkansas Board of Education.

Which brings us to the delineation of science.

May I suggest:

Nancy Cartwright, Ian Hacking, Isabelle Stengers, Peter Galison, John Dupre, Bruno Latour, Lorraine Daston, Alexandre Koyre.

None of these are quite like Fereyabend - no one is quite like Fereyabend - but they share many of the same impulses, I would suggest.

Examples of Feyereband in action is a distraction? — tom

...from the thread, yes. Go make another thread if you want to shit on Feyerabend.

Also Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn.

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

Perhaps you get the idea that the scientific method is an algorithm, because you confuse it with the purported inductive algorithm for obtaining knowledge. Anyway, it is clear you are unfamiliar with the Logic of Scientific Discovery, and that your secondary sources are suspect. This sadly, is the normal state of affairs.

I'll point out a few highlights from LSD that may surprise you, and indicate particular aspects of the scientific method which mean it cannot be made into an algorithm.

Humans, and all our decisions are fallible.
It is logically impossible to falsify a scientific theory.

The first part of the scientific method is to find a problem - THERE IS NO METHOD FOR THAT.
Then we propose a solution - THERE IS NO METHOD FOR THAT.

Because most conjectured solutions are themselves errors, all DECISIONS to reject or modify theories are TENTATIVE: they may be reversed by further argument or experimental result.

The scientific method does not specify any criteria for accepting or rejecting a theory.

Go ahead, make an algorithm out of that!

There is of course more to Popper's scientific method than that, and some interesting subtleties, but I think that's enough to be going on with.

...from the thread, yes. Go make another thread if you want to shit on Feyerabend. — darthbarracuda

Translation: "I can't find a single scientist who credits Feyerabend with any influence on their work, particularly any Nobel Prize winners"

Which brings us to the delineation of science. — Banno

Thanks, the case you quoted was interesting all round, with enjoyably pithy judgments.

'The delineation of science' is something I once tried to write an essay about. Fingerprint evidence in the 20th century, for instance, was often present in court as 'scientific'. It became clear when DNA evidence began to appear around 1990 that previous notions of 'scientific'-ness for fingerprints were absurd. Low-level technicians, not scientists, often under pressure from detectives, worked from comprehensive-sounding checklists that were pretty worthless. In the law courts they were expected to assert that their conclusions were faultless. Now we do have fingerprint science, but I'm still awaiting the scandals of wrongful convictions from the fake science of pre-1990.

And by implication, what are the guidelines for scientific practice that will include brilliant trail-blazers like people I know in the field of medical physics, creating new machinery and utilising quantum entanglement to help diagnose cancer, for instance, from the charlatans of Big Pharma who suppress non-supporting evidence and make millions out of dodgy anti-depressants? (still remembering these articles from 2011 by Marcia Angell)

Following Feyerabend's approach to method leads to Donald Trump. — Banno

That's the most nonsensical statement I must have read on this forum. So the fact that in science no method is used leads to Donald Trump... Dream on!

Oddly enough, I still think of Feyerabend as pro-science. — mcdoodle

Why is that odd? Feyerabend majored in physics and worked with David Bohm. He took inspiration from Bohm's vision on nature, which back then was considered a Trotskiyte vision of a childish, immature mind...

Nancy Cartwright, Ian Hacking, Isabelle Stengers, Peter Galison, John Dupre, Bruno Latour, Lorraine Daston, Alexandre Koyre. — StreetlightX

:up: :100: