> On 18 Jun 2019, at 05:53, Pierz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes, though it was a fairly strong claim based on the cited evidence, which > was his demonstration that all the principles of the so-called scientific > method have been violated at various times in the course of important > scientific discoveries. By analogy one might show that all laws have been > broken at some time in the course of acting morally - for example a person > may have been murdered in circumstances that most people would agree were > morally warranted. Yet demonstrating such a thing would not lead inevitably > to the conclusion that we should embrace legal anarchy - no laws at all. > Rather we might conclude that laws are good guidelines most of the time, just > that we need sometimes to exercise our judgement as to circumstances in which > we might feel compelled to break them. So falsifiability for instance is a > good rule of thumb to assess scientific theories, but there may be cases in > which we don't invoke it. For example, we mostly consider Drake's equation a > worthwhile way of assessing the probability of life arising in the universe, > but I'm not sure it's "falsifiable". I think Feyerabend's arguments were > valuable to counter excessive rigidity in scientific thinking and method, but > "epistemological anarchism" should be regarded as a rhetorical flourish.
I agree completely. Both for science and politics. Bruno > > On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:18:09 PM UTC+10, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian > philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful > and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or > the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea of the operation of science > by fixed, universal rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to > science itself. > > The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological > pluralism prescription of the theory, as the purported scientific method does > not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said > that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an > "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies. Feyerabend felt that science > started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly > dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology and > despite its successes science had started to attain some oppressive features > and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish > science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance > of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded. > > continues at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism> > > @philipthrift > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ffff643c-cae4-4407-9012-1feb8ecbece8%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ffff643c-cae4-4407-9012-1feb8ecbece8%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2FB33775-E5AC-4CD0-8FB8-4997E9AE3D74%40ulb.ac.be.
