Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Against Method

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 69 posts

Re: Against Method

#21

Post by eutectic »

nequo wrote: post #9
humanistbot wrote: post #8

> The author argues that science should become an anarchic enterprise, not a nomic (customary) one;[1] in the context of the work, the term "anarchy" refers to epistemological anarchy, which does not remain within one single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would restrict scientific progress. So sometimes we can have randomized controlled trials to really understand the effectiveness…

> that one guy in my econ class who always ranted that if it wasn't backed by a RCT, all theories are BS. The converse may be true though. If it is not backed by a theory, an RCT is BS.

There are many effective medicines for which the mechanism is unclear or disputed. Should we stop using them?

Re: Against Method

#22

Post by auggierose »

Does anyone have a link to the original 1975 version, preferably a digital one? In the foreword to the new edition it says that the publisher now provides it online, but it seems to have vanished since then.

Re: Against Method

#23

Post by Gimpei »

I struggle with Feyerabend a bit. First, a big part of that book is case studies and the problem with case studies is that they are not representative of the underlying population. It’s very easy to simply cherry pick examples that advance your thesis, whereas what we really care about is population averages.

Second, let’s assume there is no method for arriving at truth. Well then how do we verify that some discovery is actually a discovery? Presumably if there was a way to do this, we could incorporate it into our method, thus undermining Feyerabend’s thesis. Well it turns out that his answer to this is to say that evaluation should consist entirely in the contribution of the discovery to happiness and flourishing. This could be useful at a general level, but seems useless when it comes to judging between theories and research paths within science.

Re: Against Method

#24

Post by operator-name »

eutectic wrote: post #21
nequo wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> that one guy in my econ class who always ranted that if it wasn't backed by a RCT, all theories are BS. The converse may be true though. If it is not backed by a theory, an RCT is BS.

There are many effective medicines for which the mechanism is unclear or disputed. Should we stop using them?

You can use things for which there is weak or conflicting evidence for, just as you can take a sauna just becuase it makes you feel good. But take them as what they are and accept that doing so does not follow a strict interpretation of the scientific method.

Re: Against Method

#25

Post by [deleted] »

auggierose wrote: post #22

Does anyone have a link to the original 1975 version, preferably a digital one? In the foreword to the new edition it says that the publisher now provides it online, but it seems to have vanished since then.

[deleted]

Re: Against Method

#26

Post by ethanbond »

PaulHoule wrote: post #17
stdbrouw wrote: post #13

To understand Feyerabend, you have to understand the project of 20th-century philosophy of science, which was to figure out the secret sauce, the one true scientific method, so that it could then be more rigorously applied and policed in various sciences and well-maybe-sort-of-sciences, and serve to separate science from pseudoscience such as psychoanalysis. In that context, Feyerabend was perceived as a total loon f…

On top of it there is the awful truth that the ‘scientific method’ is not really practiced. In junior high school I remember getting taught about the scientific method, particularly the use of controls. I wrote 5 papers and didn’t use a control in any of them (it wouldn’t have been appropriate.). Even in cases where people obviously should use controls, such as clinical trials, they frequently don’t. There was that p…

Doesn't the question of controls basically boil down to: it's hard to know things without them, but they're often hard to create anyway, ergo it's hard to know things in general - now welcome to the nastiness of real science?

Re: Against Method

#27

Post by jdmtheNth »

How does his argument work with the current belief that objectivity and the scientific method is white supremacist oppression? Does his argument support the "alternate ways of knowing" that are being pushed as "indigenous science"?

Re: Against Method

#28

Post by lisper »

PaulHoule wrote: post #17
stdbrouw wrote: post #13

To understand Feyerabend, you have to understand the project of 20th-century philosophy of science, which was to figure out the secret sauce, the one true scientific method, so that it could then be more rigorously applied and policed in various sciences and well-maybe-sort-of-sciences, and serve to separate science from pseudoscience such as psychoanalysis. In that context, Feyerabend was perceived as a total loon f…

On top of it there is the awful truth that the ‘scientific method’ is not really practiced. In junior high school I remember getting taught about the scientific method, particularly the use of controls. I wrote 5 papers and didn’t use a control in any of them (it wouldn’t have been appropriate.). Even in cases where people obviously should use controls, such as clinical trials, they frequently don’t. There was that p…

> the ‘scientific method’ is not really practiced

There is a big difference between "often not practiced" and "not really practiced [ever]". The former is true, the latter is not.

Re: Against Method

#29

Post by bannedbybros »

jdmtheNth wrote: post #27

How does his argument work with the current belief that objectivity and the scientific method is white supremacist oppression? Does his argument support the "alternate ways of knowing" that are being pushed as "indigenous science"?

[dead]

Re: Against Method

#30

Post by Rzor »

auggierose wrote: post #22

Does anyone have a link to the original 1975 version, preferably a digital one? In the foreword to the new edition it says that the publisher now provides it online, but it seems to have vanished since then.

>vanished

You weren't kidding. I managed to find a part of "Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology (1970)" where I think his first iteration of Against Method was published as a paper (113 pages).

https://pixeldrain.com/u/mRL52iYs (50MB, PDF, with preview)

https://gofile.io/d/rDASZh (50MB, PDF, with preview)

https://1fichier.com/?2i8f0l8ns1gi3v6yf7ea (50MB, PDF, no preview)

Post reply on HN