Epistemological anarchism
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Philip Thrift
Jun 17, 2019, 5:18:09 AM6/17/19
to Everything List
Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea of the operation of science by fixed, universal rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.
The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory, as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies. Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had started to attain some oppressive features and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded.
@philipthrift
Pierz
Jun 17, 2019, 11:53:53 PM6/17/19
to Everything List
Yes, though it was a fairly strong claim based on the cited evidence, which was his demonstration that all the principles of the so-called scientific method have been violated at various times in the course of important scientific discoveries. By analogy one might show that all laws have been broken at some time in the course of acting morally - for example a person may have been murdered in circumstances that most people would agree were morally warranted. Yet demonstrating such a thing would not lead inevitably to the conclusion that we should embrace legal anarchy - no laws at all. Rather we might conclude that laws are good guidelines most of the time, just that we need sometimes to exercise our judgement as to circumstances in which we might feel compelled to break them. So falsifiability for instance is a good rule of thumb to assess scientific theories, but there may be cases in which we don't invoke it. For example, we mostly consider Drake's equation a worthwhile way of assessing the probability of life arising in the universe, but I'm not sure it's "falsifiable". I think Feyerabend's arguments were valuable to counter excessive rigidity in scientific thinking and method, but "epistemological anarchism" should be regarded as a rhetorical flourish.
Philip Thrift
Jun 18, 2019, 2:00:24 AM6/18/19
to Everything List
Science started as a liberating movement, but over time it has become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore has become increasingly an ideology.
It seems this rigid dogmatism is especially more present though in physicists than other scientists, like chemists or biologists.
@philipthrift
Bruno Marchal
Jun 18, 2019, 7:21:55 AM6/18/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 18 Jun 2019, at 05:53, Pierz <pie...@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, though it was a fairly strong claim based on the cited evidence, which was his demonstration that all the principles of the so-called scientific method have been violated at various times in the course of important scientific discoveries. By analogy one might show that all laws have been broken at some time in the course of acting morally - for example a person may have been murdered in circumstances that most people would agree were morally warranted. Yet demonstrating such a thing would not lead inevitably to the conclusion that we should embrace legal anarchy - no laws at all. Rather we might conclude that laws are good guidelines most of the time, just that we need sometimes to exercise our judgement as to circumstances in which we might feel compelled to break them. So falsifiability for instance is a good rule of thumb to assess scientific theories, but there may be cases in which we don't invoke it. For example, we mostly consider Drake's equation a worthwhile way of assessing the probability of life arising in the universe, but I'm not sure it's "falsifiable". I think Feyerabend's arguments were valuable to counter excessive rigidity in scientific thinking and method, but "epistemological anarchism" should be regarded as a rhetorical flourish.
I agree completely. Both for science and politics.
Bruno
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:18:09 PM UTC+10, Philip Thrift wrote:Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea of the operation of science by fixed, universal rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory, as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies. Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had started to attain some oppressive features and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded.@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ffff643c-cae4-4407-9012-1feb8ecbece8%40googlegroups.com.
Bruno Marchal
Jun 18, 2019, 7:29:12 AM6/18/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
On 18 Jun 2019, at 08:00, Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote:The two words together don't make much sense, but the key point does:Science started as a liberating movement, but over time it has become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore has become increasingly an ideology.It seems this rigid dogmatism is especially more present though in physicists than other scientists, like chemists or biologists.
My experience is that the biologist are often quite open-minded, like many engineers. I have never had problem with physicist, nor really with any scientists, but do have problem with philosophers, and some scientists who defends the philosophical curriculum, that my work challenge, like y plea for making theology back in science.
Physicists are usually neutral on ontology and even of physicalism, despite the Aristotle era? But materialist philosophers are not neutral, and very dogmatic on this issue. They confuse often Aristotle primary matter with what we can infer from observation. That distinction has been clear for a millennium of theology, before getting brushed away by most churches and mosques.
When science started, religion was popular science, and theology was, per definition, fundamental science, interested in the ontology vs phenomenology questioning.
Bruno
@philipthrift
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 10:53:53 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote:Yes, though it was a fairly strong claim based on the cited evidence, which was his demonstration that all the principles of the so-called scientific method have been violated at various times in the course of important scientific discoveries. By analogy one might show that all laws have been broken at some time in the course of acting morally - for example a person may have been murdered in circumstances that most people would agree were morally warranted. Yet demonstrating such a thing would not lead inevitably to the conclusion that we should embrace legal anarchy - no laws at all. Rather we might conclude that laws are good guidelines most of the time, just that we need sometimes to exercise our judgement as to circumstances in which we might feel compelled to break them. So falsifiability for instance is a good rule of thumb to assess scientific theories, but there may be cases in which we don't invoke it. For example, we mostly consider Drake's equation a worthwhile way of assessing the probability of life arising in the universe, but I'm not sure it's "falsifiable". I think Feyerabend's arguments were valuable to counter excessive rigidity in scientific thinking and method, but "epistemological anarchism" should be regarded as a rhetorical flourish.
On Monday, June 17, 2019 at 7:18:09 PM UTC+10, Philip Thrift wrote:Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea of the operation of science by fixed, universal rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory, as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies. Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology and despite its successes science had started to attain some oppressive features and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded.@philipthrift
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2e208409-41f4-4dab-ab0d-2f4a40e0c5e2%40googlegroups.com.
John Clark
Jun 18, 2019, 9:58:15 AM6/18/19
to everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge.
No exceptions? Doesn't he make an exception for the idea that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge?
John K Clark
Philip Thrift
Jun 18, 2019, 10:09:09 AM6/18/19
to Everything List
"The only rule is there are no rules" I think Graham Priest handles.
@philipthrift
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages