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

91–96 of 96 posts

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

#91

Post by ordu »

ukj wrote: post #89
ordu wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I use it for communication. You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian thinker. > Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, counter-factualism, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is incomlete) are just some of the tools in my toolbox. How…

I believe that I don't have any beliefs. You might recognise the above as a manifestation of the Liar's paradox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liar_paradox Depending on your predisposition, that's either a contradiction or infinite regress. Either way - you can't decide the truth (or falsity) value of the sentence. That's where the Religion of Logic/Truth usually leads to - undecidability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wi…

> I believe that I don't have any beliefs.

> You might recognise the above as a manifestation of the Liar's paradox.

Yes, fine point. Much shorter then mine version and much clearer.

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

#92

Post by pjc50 »

lidHanteyk wrote: post #81
empath75 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This has helped me understand why folks think that I'm so often trolling: I wish for my opinion to be shown silly, because I'm so confident that it is a stupid opinion, because all of my opinions are stupid silly opinions. If you're not telling people that this is your purpose, then you are not arguing in good faith. If you're playing devil's advocate, you should say so. There's a big difference between, for exampl…

Alright, let's take this for a test drive, then: I don't really think that good-faith argument exists, in general. The idea of good faith is old and important in law; without good faith, it would be hard to enter into contracts. The underlying emotional content that we are reaching for when we try to embrace good faith is the emotion of authenticity . However, I don't think that people are capable of being authentic.…

Nice try, but we're not falling for it now.

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

#93

Post by lidHanteyk »

pjc50 wrote: post #92
lidHanteyk wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Alright, let's take this for a test drive, then: I don't really think that good-faith argument exists, in general. The idea of good faith is old and important in law; without good faith, it would be hard to enter into contracts. The underlying emotional content that we are reaching for when we try to embrace good faith is the emotion of authenticity . However, I don't think that people are capable of being authentic.…

Nice try, but we're not falling for it now.

What were you falling for before?

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

#94

Post by drallison »

morango wrote: post #36
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…

Many working scientists are also not very well versed in social sciences and humanities and tend to just get angry when anything outside of their fields get mentioned.

My experience is precisely the reverse. Working scientists understand both the social sciences and humanities as well as science and math. On the other hand, people outside the sciences have very little understanding of science and math. And they are often embarrassed by their lack of knowledge and sometimes respond in anger.

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

#95

Post by drallison »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #46
choonway wrote: post #17

Never heard of him. I read the article and now I know why. There are plenty of people like him out there all kinds of non-constructive thinking and talking.

Actually, there's almost nobody else remotely like Feyerabend. Imre Lakatos came close, but was more interested in mathematics than science. Feyerabend was one of the most brilliant and original thinkers of the 20th century, whether or not he was right about some things, or about anything at all.

I knew Feyerabend in Berkeley in the early 1960's. He was an engaging character, a large personality, a brilliant conversationalist, always surrounded by an interesting collection of other articulate people as he held forth at the Mediterranean Coffee House on Telegraph Avenue. Right or wrong, his perceptive observations motivated further consideration.

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

#96

Post by ggm »

Yessing wrote: post #84
Yessing wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the dwm? "Desktop Window Manager"?

to clarify I'm asking about the meaning of dwm. The only term that I'm familiar with, and that shows up in google is Desktop Window Manager.

https://public.oed.com/blog/march-2014-update-new-words-note...

The phrase dead white male (abbreviated DWM), has been used since the mid-1980s as a term of disparagement for male authors and academics of European ancestry whose pre-eminence, especially in academic study, is challenged as being disproportionate to their cultural significance, and attributed to a historical bias in favour of their gender and ethnicity.

Post reply on HN