/lit/ - Literature

>>23141790

>>22965645
You're so mad faggot lmao

Is he worth reading? How much impact has his thought had in philosophy of science?

>>18512771
>the modern scientific method
Don't tell him philosophyofsciencebros.

been thinking about getting into more classical philosophy (Kant, Hume &c.) but not sure who to start with. is there a good ordered guide for this, or can it be done completely regardless of order?

About to read this Austrian madman. Is it true that he BTFOs scientific methodology?

>>12949590
Why aren’t you a good student anon?

What does /lit/ think of Feyerabend?

>There is no need to fear that the diminished concern for law and order in science and society that characterizes an anarchism of this kind will lead to chaos.
>There may, of course, come a time when it will be necessary to give reason a temporary advantage and when it will be wise to defend its rules to the exclusion of everything else. I do not think that we are living in such a time today. [12]
>12. This was my opinion in 1970 when I wrote the first version of this essay. Times
have changed. Considering some tendencies in US education ('politicaUy correct',
academic menus, etc.), in philosophy (postmodernism) and in the world at large I think
that reason should now be given greater weight not because it is and always was
fundamental but because it seems to be needed, in circumstances that occur rather
frequently today (but may disappear tomorrow), to create a more humane approach.

What did he mean by this?

>*destroys STEM and vanishes*
heh, nothing personel one-track minds.

>>8466513
>client=safari&

>>7859221
"The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending."

>>7181116
tell me anon, how does it work

>>6770371
There is no 'scientific method' you disillusion cuck

>>6384475

>Feyerabend described science as being essentially anarchistic, obsessed with its own mythology, and as making claims to truth well beyond its actual capacity. He was especially indignant about the condescending attitudes of many scientists towards alternative traditions. For example, he thought that negative opinions about astrology and the effectivity of rain dances were not justified by scientific research, and dismissed the predominantly negative attitudes of scientists towards such phenomena as elitist or racist. In his opinion, science has become a repressing ideology, even though it arguably started as a liberating movement. Feyerabend thought that a pluralistic society should be protected from being influenced too much by science, just as it is protected from other ideologies.

>Starting from the argument that a historical universal scientific method does not exist, Feyerabend argues that science does not deserve its privileged status in western society. Since scientific points of view do not arise from using a universal method which guarantees high quality conclusions, he thought that there is no justification for valuing scientific claims over claims by other ideologies like religions. Feyerabend also argued that scientific accomplishments such as the moon landings are no compelling reason to give science a special status. In his opinion, it is not fair to use scientific assumptions about which problems are worth solving in order to judge the merit of other ideologies. Additionally, success by scientists has traditionally involved non-scientific elements, such as inspiration from mythical or religious sources.

>Based on these arguments, Feyerabend defended the idea that science should be separated from the state in the same way that religion and state are separated in a modern secular society. He envisioned a "free society" in which "all traditions have equal rights and equal access to the centres of power". For example, parents should be able to determine the ideological context of their children's education, instead of having limited options because of scientific standards. According to Feyerabend, science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people. He thought that citizens should use their own principles when making decisions about these matters. He rejected the view that science is especially "rational" on the grounds that there is no single common "rational" ingredient that unites all the sciences but excludes other modes of thought.

Thoughts on this guy? Is he a wackjob?

The withdrawal of philosophy into a "professional" shell of its own has had disastrous consequences. The younger generation of physicists, the Feynmans, the Schwingers, etc., may be very bright; they may be more intelligent than their predecessors, than Bohr, Einstein, Schrödinger, Boltzmann, Mach and so on. But they are uncivilized savages, they lack in philosophical depth – and this is the fault of the very same idea of professionalism which you are now defending.[

>>4999907

Look.. A watch.