Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
blogs.scientificamerican.com
Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
1–10 of 96 posts
Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#2You need an alternative view. He provided one. A good deal. Philosophy is never about convenience.
The real question - is philosophy of science helped science or human. I am not sure.
Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#3If a field of knowledge is associated with a person or group of persons ("Frankfurter Schule", "Wiener Kreis"), I am a priori sceptical. Genuine scientific knowledge exists for itself and does not require authority and sectarian admiration. Philosophy can produce more useful things (e.g. knowledge representation, ontologies) than subjective individual opinions.
Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#4Btw if you have to quote an interview of another dead white man (rip paul I am very respect him even though argue for Nec OST me my course in philosophy of science but I have no regret ) please at least have a quote on the same reporter.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-i-wrong...
Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#5Btw if you have to quote an interview of another dead white man (rip paul I am very respect him even though argue for Nec OST me my course in philosophy of science but I have no regret ) please at least have a quote on the same reporter. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-i-wrong...
Why the racial qualifier?
Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#6Btw if you have to quote an interview of another dead white man (rip paul I am very respect him even though argue for Nec OST me my course in philosophy of science but I have no regret ) please at least have a quote on the same reporter. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-i-wrong...
Why the racial qualifier?
There are two tropes here: the dwm, and the whiner. Why do you think your whining is better than their pejorative?
Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#7Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#8If a field of knowledge is associated with a person or group of persons ("Frankfurter Schule", "Wiener Kreis"), I am a priori sceptical. Genuine scientific knowledge exists for itself and does not require authority and sectarian admiration. Philosophy can produce more useful things (e.g. knowledge representation, ontologies) than subjective individual opinions.
I agreed with you sort of. But as there was originally a positive view ie “For Method” not just against one in the book, may I try the problem presented by Kuhn. All institutions have built in bias. And teacher found their own similar once. Hence the paradigm. And the authority is there.
also even if there is no authority one still has to explain what we are doing here. Philosophy may not just be of philosopher. We are not Plato and Aristotle... and in fact I doubt many practitioner even listen to this speculation. but still they need to say something.
For example One may say we are trying to devise experiments to refute ... or is it really so? that is not we observe but to a certain extent per Kuhn I say not. And this popper Way and the anarchist way is just was to take about things.
Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#9Re: Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016)
#10Btw if you have to quote an interview of another dead white man (rip paul I am very respect him even though argue for Nec OST me my course in philosophy of science but I have no regret ) please at least have a quote on the same reporter. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-i-wrong...
Why the racial qualifier?
It is not racial. Just fact. The philosophy of science needed to be diversified.
I tried to counter it by doing a live reporter which I guess is at least an alive man. I hope there would be alive non-white woman chip in.