/sci/ - Science & Math

This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: *anything goes*.

For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance science by proceeding counter-inductively. The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual.

There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge. The whole history of thought is absorbed into science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo.

No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of progress. It is also a first step in our attempts to find the principles implicit in familiar observational notions.

In a sane society scientists would be encouraged to design experiments that challenge the status quo rather than 'confirm' the prescribed dogma ad infinitum.

>>4012394

No. All attempts to impose particular methodologies will impede progress. There is certainly a place for counterinduction, but a methodology based on counterinduction would be just as stifling as its more conformist rivals.

I think I like feyerabend an I intend to read it sometimes (after alot of other stuff)
>>4012394
well, that a huge issue. it's all in the moneys, ya know

/thread

>>4012423
>implying Feyerabend is anti-science

>>4012438
no i didn't. he attracts a lot of anti science whackos though.

>you
>reading too much into my post
yes.

>>4012423

What does that have to do with anything?

>>4012442

He also attracts a lot of aggressively 'Rational', pro-science wackos who like to trash him without bothering to read a single word he wrote. Personally I don't like either crowd.

>>4012452
it was a preemptive response to what any thread featuring Feyerabend usually descend into.

you haven't been on /sci/ long, have you?

>>4012462

No, this is the first I've posted here. I just wondered what the response would to me posting a bunch of Feyerabend quotes.

>>4012460
I wouldn't be so quick to condemn people just because they don't read Feyerabend's work.
While neither crowd is perfect, I think those who disparage the principle of science (instead of what goes within it) are a lot more dangerous.

>4012468
The thread is quite boring. try interpreting his work for yourself instead of quoting directly. it'll make it easier to start an interesting discussion.

First I suggest you spend a bit more time reading the board before you post.

>>4012336

>feyerabend
>baby's first philosophy of science

sorry I can't hear you over the sound of my portable 10 gigaW NSTAR ion thruster.

>>4012477

>>I wouldn't be so quick to condemn people just because they don't read Feyerabend's work.

I don't. Rather I criticized people who trash Feyerabend without reading his work (or at least without paying any attention when reading it).

>>try interpreting his work for yourself instead of quoting directly.

Not only have I read AM numerous times, I've worked through it and made notes on every paragraph, attempting to reduce each one to a single line (Bertrand Russell did the same thing with one of his favourite books, and I figure if it works for Bertrand Russell...). So I'm than able to 'interpret it for myself'.

>>it'll make it easier to start an interesting discussion.

What makes you think I'm looking for (what you consider to be) an interesting discussion?

>>First I suggest you spend a bit more time reading the board before you post.

No.

>>4012484

I read Feyerabend fairly late in my philosophy education, actually. I was inspired to study him seriously only after seeing the influence he had on Paul Churchland (another favourite philosopher of mine).

>>4012484
>starting philosophy of science with Feyerabend
You're doing it wrong

>>4012501
he is the start if you grew up with /sci/ or /sci/ introduced you to science.

for me. Feyerabend is an early philosopher. only coming after someone like karl popper

>>4012501

the only thing interesting about feyerabend is his biography where he talks about all the women he banged even though he lost his balls in some war

>>4012513

or he lost his entire penis? i dunno


apparently the ladies loved him eventhough he had no penis

>>4012496
>Rather I criticized people who trash Feyerabend without reading his work

a lot of the time, at least on discussions here, its not so much their fault as it is the people they are discussing it with who have read Feyerabend and interpreted or express it to them inadequately. the people criticising him may only be criticising others Interpretation of his work and it leads you to believe they are criticising Feyerabend directly.

>So I'm than able to 'interpret it for myself'.

Okay then show that by at least attempting to start discussion. copypasting from his book is no conducive for a discussion


unrelated but can I ask where and why you read it so in depth? what philosophy course does philosophy of science so rigorously? i always understood philosophy of science as shit tier philosophy compared to ethics, and metaphysics

>What makes you think I'm looking for (what you consider to be) an interesting discussion?

don't start a thread then. You are getting defensive and insecure about your thread. lol

>>4012496
You start a thread, post 5 quotes and don't want a discussion? what is it you want?

>>4012532
mhm, I kinda view philosophy of science as part of metaphysics.

>>4012532

>>a lot of the time, at least on discussions here, its not so much their fault as it is the people they are discussing it with who have read Feyerabend and interpreted or express it to them inadequately. the people criticising him may only be criticising others Interpretation of his work and it leads you to believe they are criticising Feyerabend directly.

I'm speaking about my experiences. They will not be the same as your experiences, obviously. I've certainly encountered a lot of people in both 'anti-science' and 'pro-science' camps who have deeply misunderstood, or just not bothered to read before commenting on, Feyerabend.

>>Okay then show that by at least attempting to start discussion. copypasting from his book is no conducive for a discussion

You seem to be under the impression that I'm trying to fulfill your desires. That's not the case. I'm here to entertain myself. That said, I do enjoy talking about Feyerabend, and if you genuinely want to have a discussion about him (or anything else in philosophy), I'll let you know where you can contact me. I'm not interested in having a serious discussion here.

>>unrelated but can I ask where and why you read it so in depth? what philosophy course does philosophy of science so rigorously?

I read it at my house because I wanted to. It wasn't for a course. We touched on Feyerabend in my philosophy of science course, but he wasn't required reading.

>>i always understood philosophy of science as shit tier philosophy compared to ethics, and metaphysics

My primary interests are philosophy of science and philosophy of mind, and metaphysics is great, too. Ethics isn't so interesting for me. I do like metaethics a lot; I can generally take or leave applied ethics.

>>don't start a thread then.

Again, I'm not here to entertain you. I have my own agenda.

>>You are getting defensive and insecure about your thread

Why do you think I'm getting 'defensive and insecure'?

>>4012553
maybe, but then it's shit tier metaphysics.

philosophers of science most often have nothing more to say than anything you can interpret from aristotle's rhetorical triangle––that science doesn't hold a monopoly on knowledge production and enhancement, that we obtain 'truth' from multiple modes of persuasion, science only informs a third of our argument. The rest maybe irrational but it's just as powerful as science (maybe more so). Noen of this is disputable. And all of it came before Feyerabend

>>4012553

Where did I say that I don't want a discussion? I asked that other poster why he thinks I'm looking for what he considers to be an interesting discussion.

Obviously I want a discussion - just not necessarily the kind of discussion that would garner the approval of that poster.

>>4012573
You've never actually read any philosophy of science have you?

>>4012580

I was just about to say the same thing.

>>4012570
This response mechanism we've got going could end up half the size of the entire page.

I'm not saying your comments should conform to my wants. but I inferred from the fact that you started a thread, that you must want to engage in some conversation. Maybe I was wrong.


Okay thanks. I'd love to know if any uni courses go into depth on this


I didn't say you were here to entertain me. That's you getting defensive and insecure again. if your agenda in starting a thread was not start a discussion then i must assume it was for what? decoration? or trolling? both seem rather immature...

>mfw no one cares about the fact that Feyerabend had no penis and was a womanizer.

/sci/....

>>4012580
that is basically what the quotes in this thread say. if you disagree then please elucidate. what do they say. it's useless if you just say 'No' full stop

>>4012496
>What makes you think I'm looking for (what you consider to be) an interesting discussion?
>>4012578
>Where did I say that I don't want a discussion? I asked that other poster why he thinks I'm looking for what he considers to be an interesting discussion.

douchebag semantics >.<
I hope you're enjoying yourself :P

>>4012588

>>but I inferred from the fact that you started a thread, that you must want to engage in some conversation

Of course I want 'some sort of conversation'. I never denied that.

>>I'd love to know if any uni courses go into depth on this

All good philosophy courses will have a fairly in-depth philosophy of science program. They won't necessarily devote much time to Feyerabend, though.

>>That's you getting defensive and insecure again

You still haven't told me why you're reading my comments that way.

>>both seem rather immature...

I don't care whether people classify me as 'mature' or not.

>>4012613

You'd have to be quite illiterate to think that 'I don't want a discussion' and 'I don't want what some other person considers to be an interesting discussion' are equivalent.

>>4012595

No matter what the quotes in the thread say, it's certainly not the case that 'philosophers of science most often have nothing more to say' than that.

Feyerabend is a highly controversial figure in philosophy of science. There are not at all many philosophers who agree with his conclusions (at least in the analytic tradition, in which Feyerabend originally worked).

>>4012614
this is completely pedantic and not the discussion we should be having.

I've learned from experience that if you want to start a discussion it's not enough to just quote from a book and post a corresponding image. That's tantamount to trolling. it's better if you actually give your own interpretation of the topic. it's more interesting. if someone wanted to read against method, they can. they don't need you copying here for them.

i felt like you were being too defensive when you got it into your head that I am pushing for my preferred form of discussion (whatever that means)

>>4012620
Why are you implying that this is what one would read out of my post. Or how do you interpret it this way?
I did say that there is no difference but clearly, in any "normal" argument you'd not differentiate something like this and expect people to inteprete it as separated statments.
So at best I was pointing out your provocative semantic in your posh argument. Anyway this is going off topic, so I'll just give you the last word.

>>4012624
okay so you're taking issue with the wording of :

"nothing more to say'"

I apologise.

my main point was to highlight how I think against method doesn't actually say anything remotely controversial

>>4012628

>>this is completely pedantic and not the discussion we should be having.

I find this entertaining enough, so I'm going to continue. As I said before, if you want to have a more serious discussion about these issues, just let me know, I'll give you some contact details. I'm not going to do it here.

>>I've learned from experience that if you want to start a discussion it's not enough to just quote from a book and post a corresponding image. That's tantamount to trolling

I have started a discussion. Maybe that discussion doesn't garner your approval, but I'm not looking for your approval anyway. I don't care whether I'm classified as a troll or not.

>>it's better if you actually give your own interpretation of the topic. it's more interesting

Would you like to do that? I can give you an email to contact me on if you'd genuinely like to do it.

>>i felt like you were being too defensive when you got it into your head that I am pushing for my preferred form of discussion

It seems to me that you are pushing for your preferred form of discussion. It doesn't bother me that you're doing that, but I'm not going to conform to your desires. If you want a serious discussion, just let me know and we can do it elsewhere.

>>4012637
>>4012637

I try not to write anything that's superfluous. If I wanted to say 'I don't want a discussion', that's all I would have said. What I actually said is significantly different to that, and obviously so.

>>4012650
>I'm not going to do it here.

Oh well than. Bye.
so you posted about methodological anarchism but have no intention of discussing methodological anarchism and instead you're happy with what shit debate originate even if it's this one? me think you're just butthurt that your thread turned to shit.

I have no sufficient interest for private discussion. Why are you scared to discuss things here

I didn't say you had to conform to my desires. And we're all pushing for our own 'preferred form of discussion' all the time

if you want to go elsewhere, go elsewhere. I'm not coming with you. Freak.

>>4012638

I took issue with the whole phrase. It would have been more understandable - though still incorrect - if you'd said, e.g. 'Paul Feyerabend most often has nothing more to say'.

Against Method is undeniably controversial. Whether it should have this reputation is another matter. In my view, it's radical for philosophy of science at the time it was published, and I think a few parts of it would still be radical today... the general ideas, though, are not as radical as many people think they are.

>>4012674
>the general ideas are not as radical as many people think they are

So we agree.

>>4012670

>>you're happy with what shit debate originate even if it's this one?

I'm entertained, so I don't think it's shit. I don't use 4chan for serious discussions about philosophy of science. There are plenty of specialist forums available for that.

>>me think you're just butthurt that your thread turned to shit.

Haha, okay.

>>I didn't say you had to conform to my desires

No, you didn't. I'm just letting you know it's going to happen, no matter how much whining you do.

>>And we're all pushing for our own 'preferred form of discussion' all the time

Right. As I said, it doesn't bother me that you're doing this. It's just that I'm not going to conform to your desires.

>>if you want to go elsewhere, go elsewhere. I'm not coming with you.

You're the one who seems to want to have a serious discussion about this topic. I can take it or leave it - after all, I can have serious discussions about this pretty much whenever I want.

>>4012702
>I'm not going to conform to your desires.
>it's not going to happen, no matter how much whining you do.
>I'm entertained, so I don't think it's shit.
>I can have serious discussions about this pretty much whenever I want.

The way in which you repeatedly try to assert yourself and simultaneously force an indifferent attitude is rather desperate. . You can stop responding line by line. it only underlines your desperation to have the last word.

>>4012670

>>I have no sufficient interest for private discussion

By the way, I wasn't necessarily suggesting a private discussion. We could discuss on philosophyforums.com, for example.

>>4012724
I don't see any advantage to discussing it here.

>>4012721

>>The way in which you repeatedly try to assert yourself

An amusing criticism, coming from you.

>>and simultaneously force an indifferent attitude is rather desperate.

I wouldn't at all describe myself as 'indifferent'. I'm passionate, loving, emotive, etc.

>>You can stop responding line by line

No, I'll continue doing things the way I want.

>>it only underlines your desperation to have the last word.

As long as you keep responding to me, I need not fear that I'm anymore desperate than you to have the last word. Not that it would matter if I was.

>>4012735

Well, the option's there. Since you're completely unwilling to venture outside this board, it's a reasonable assumption that you're not actually interested in having a serious discussion (which makes your comments about the quality of this thread quite odd).

>>4012743
>I'll continue doing things the way I want.

I said you can, not that you should.
Do not panic. You do not need to assert yourself in front of me.

>>4012748
>you're not actually interested in having a serious discussion

premature conclusion. I already spend too much time on the internet as it is. and it's approach half 12 here. I'm quite perplexed as to why you are completely unwilling to talking about the topic you started in the thread you started

>>4012771

>>I already spend too much time on the internet as it is

We don't have to do it today.

>>I'm quite perplexed as to why you are completely unwilling to talking about the topic you started in the thread you started

Cognitive deficiencies like this are not surprising at this point.

>>4012787
Oh nice, insults. Classy.

And maybe we'll meet in that forum but i doubt it. You haven't expressed why it's superior. I've been browsing the threads there and they are no different from I participate in here.

>>4012336
Anarchy will never work. Kill yourself moron etc

Pic related your totally radical insignia

>>4012805

Of course I haven't. I'm not trying to persuade you to talk with me elsewhere. I'm just pointing out that there are places in which I'm willing to have a serious discussion about this - if you're interested in a serious discussion. I don't think you are.

Anyway, you won't be seeing me there, because I'm off now.