On 1/6/2012 10:14 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I have recently finished listening Prof Hoenen's Theorien der Wahrheit where he has also reviewed Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society. Today I wanted to learn more about that book and have found in Internet

Paul Feyerabend, 1975
How To Defend Society Against Science

You may like it. Just two quote:

"The lesson is plain: there does not exist a single argument that could be used to support the exceptional role which science today plays in society."

"Science is just one of the many ideologies that propel society and it should be treated as such."

Other quotes that I like are at


"/In society at large the judgement of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgement of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago."

/I guess Feyerbrand was looking the other way when scientist said microscopic animals caused disease, lightning was just electricity, condoms will prevent HIV, and cigarette smoking caused cancer. I wonder what he would make of the "reverence" with which warnings of global warming are being received. And it is still bishops and cardinals who are interviewed on television when there are questions of ethics and public policy.



On 06.01.2012 18:33 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 06 Jan 2012, at 17:54, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 06.01.2012 17:08 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru> wrote:

If to talk about Galileo, then it would also good to
remember Feyerabend
(for example Against method). Feyerabend has studied the way
Galileo has made science a lot and his conclusion:

"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to
reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration
the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its
verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism
can be legitimized solely for motives of political

I believe those remarks could be summarized more concisely if he
had said " I Paul Feyerabend am an idiot". I love philosophy but
hate philosophers because very little philosophy comes from
professional philosophers, it comes from scientists and
mathematicians. Every time I think I'm being too hard on
philosophers somebody mentions a person like Feyerabend and I
remember why I dislike them so much.

John K Clark

This statement contradict to a normal scientific world view but it
is based on historical facts. Hence it well might be that you have
to read more about Galileo.

As for Feyerabend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend)

"Feyerabend became famous for his purportedly anarchistic view of
science and his rejection of the existence of universal
methodological rules.[1] He is an influential figure in the
philosophy of science, and also in the sociology of scientific

His book Against method has been cited more than 6000 times
according to Google Scholar


This does not mean that everybody has to agree with him but a
statement about an idiot looks exaggerated.

I agree. In fact I do agree often with John Clark, but then he
exaggerates also very often the point. I am probably very close to
him on philosophers, especially continental one, and on Feyerabend.
But, actually, in this Galileo case, I have come to similar
conclusion as Feyerabend, and I think it is an important point. The
church was asking to Galileo to present his view as a theory or
conjecture, and the church agreed that such a theory explain better
the facts. The church asks him only to accept that it was only a
theory, but Galileo refused (or accepted it but only to avoid
trouble, cf "e pur si muove"). Of course, Galileo should have
answered "all right, but then you should accept that God and all that
is only a theory, too", which was not diplomatically possible.

But by refusing the status of theory (conjecture) for its own
findings, Galileo did endorse the "modern" view of naturalism, and
that science *has* to be naturalist, and this *is* a scientific error
(as comp illustrates) which has not yet been corrected (excepting the
study of comp). Even Aristotle did not commit that error explicitly,
although he paved the road for it. Most scientists, even layman,
believes today that the existence of a primary physical reality is a
*scientific fact*, where it is only either a gross animal
extrapolation, or an aristotelian assumption, which can be refuted
(as comp illustrates, at the least).

A pity is that more or less recently the catholic church has done a
work of rehabilitation of Galileo, where they endorse that very
mistake, showing how much the catholic Church want weak materialism
and naturalism to be dogma. That is not new, Catholics even differ
from protestants on the importance of the notion of primitive matter,
notably to be able to say that bread is, in concreto, the flesh of



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to