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

Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 96 posts

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#51

Post by thanatropism »

jhbadger wrote: post #14
osullivj wrote: post #11

His insistence that there is no scientific method is pro-science. Science’s only method is “opportunism,” he said. “You need a toolbox full of different kinds of tools. Not only a hammer and pins and nothing else." This is what he meant by his much-maligned phrase "anything goes" (and not, as is commonly thought, that one scientific theory is as good as any other). Restricting science to a particular methodology--suc…

Well, it's true that the cliched "scientific method" taught in high schools is a gross oversimplification, and many discoveries are made by accident rather than deliberately trying to test a clearly defined hypothesis. But in the 1980s-1990s "Science Wars", there was a movement by postmodernists to try to claim that science is just an ideology no better than religion or magic. This movement liked to quote Feyerabend…

> there was a movement by postmodernists to try to claim that science is just an ideology no better than religion or magic.

This is such a paranoid fantasy.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#52

Post by Rochus »

andrepd wrote: post #50
Rochus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we hear the name Adorno, we have to tremble with awe, don't we? >> A school of thought[0] specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles Agree, but this does not improve the quality of the sentences uttered by the members of this "school" (sorry if I'm hurting the feelings of any Marxists here). >> Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Well, in Ger…

[flagged]

Maybe you better read something about the "New Theory" and the "Frankfurt School" before you lecture other people.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#53

Post by vkou »

thanatropism wrote: post #51
jhbadger wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's true that the cliched "scientific method" taught in high schools is a gross oversimplification, and many discoveries are made by accident rather than deliberately trying to test a clearly defined hypothesis. But in the 1980s-1990s "Science Wars", there was a movement by postmodernists to try to claim that science is just an ideology no better than religion or magic. This movement liked to quote Feyerabend…

> there was a movement by postmodernists to try to claim that science is just an ideology no better than religion or magic. This is such a paranoid fantasy.

It's not a paranoid fantasy, when you look at the (very real) religious education wars that were being waged in the American South.

The meme of "Science is no better then religion or magic" is why schools mandated equal time into teaching evolution, and particular flavours of evangelical creationism.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#54

Post by nickloewen »

amatic wrote: post #26
jhbadger wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's true that the cliched "scientific method" taught in high schools is a gross oversimplification, and many discoveries are made by accident rather than deliberately trying to test a clearly defined hypothesis. But in the 1980s-1990s "Science Wars", there was a movement by postmodernists to try to claim that science is just an ideology no better than religion or magic. This movement liked to quote Feyerabend…

That sounds interesting. Do you have a recommendation for some reading materials on those Science Wars?

You might be interested in Why Trust Science? by Naomi Oreskes, who tries to answer a related question: how do we do science in a 'post-truth' period, where the tactics of postmodern critique are being taken up by climate change deniers, tobacco companies, etc?

I have only read the beginning, but chapter one gives a very good overview of the history of critique that got us to this place. Oreskes suggests that it is possible to hold a critical, social constructivist position while also demanding a good scientific practice that will produce trustworthy knowledge.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#55

Post by tokai »

Rochus wrote: post #52
andrepd wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Maybe you better read something about the "New Theory" and the "Frankfurt School" before you lecture other people.

Same could be said to you. I wouldn't had posted if I knew you would go of the rails like you did.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#57

Post by Rochus »

tokai wrote: post #55
Rochus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you better read something about the "New Theory" and the "Frankfurt School" before you lecture other people.

Same could be said to you. I wouldn't had posted if I knew you would go of the rails like you did.

[flagged]

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#58

Post by tghdjsk »

amatic wrote: post #26
jhbadger wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's true that the cliched "scientific method" taught in high schools is a gross oversimplification, and many discoveries are made by accident rather than deliberately trying to test a clearly defined hypothesis. But in the 1980s-1990s "Science Wars", there was a movement by postmodernists to try to claim that science is just an ideology no better than religion or magic. This movement liked to quote Feyerabend…

That sounds interesting. Do you have a recommendation for some reading materials on those Science Wars?

Karin Knorr-Cetina's Epistemic cultures : how the sciences make knowledge (1999). https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=0372C63887A1EAB996E5E2D...

How does science create knowledge? Epistemic cultures, shaped by affinity, necessity and historical coincidence, determine how people know and what they know. This text compares two epistemic cultures, those in high energy physics and molecular biology.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#59

Post by tghdjsk »

Rochus wrote: post #38
claudiawerner wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>By the end of the day, "philosopher" is nothing more than a more fashionable word for "writer". And like "film critic", "philosopher" is an unprotected, self-appointed title. Scientists also write; writing isn't the point, the point is logically consistent arguments (or arguments for a particular logical system), which philosophers attempt to make. "Mathematician", "programmer", "logician" and in many cases "enginee…

I can't really add more than I already said. I assume that you know the difference between physicists, mathematicians and engineers or how these titles are protected in Germany, for example, and that there is no need to discuss this. I have already referred (see links above) to the direction in which, in my view, the philosophy of science should usefully develop. And regardless how you call it: hypothesis, prediction…

> I can't really add more than I already said.

If you have no reasonable response to counter any of the refutations directed towards your positions, then consider revising your views.

Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)

#60

Post by tghdjsk »

Rochus wrote: post #16
tokai wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how do you feel about Newtonian physics or algorithms? All knowledge is social.

Expressing opinions does not create new, reliable scientific knowledge. Instead scientists observe, make claims, deduce the effects of their claims, and then conduct experiments suited to possibly observe these effects. So it's not just claiming. And the laws of physics exist by themselves, even when there is no human society to discover and know them. It's a different story how knowledge is passed on or accepted by…

> In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable, but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence.

It's pretty clear that you don't actually know what philosophy, social science or the humanities entails, and how knowledge is actually produced and vetted in these fields.

edit: why was this flagged?

Post reply on HN