> I took a look, and I really think that Feyerabend confuses science
> and science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position and
> power.

I would agree in a sense that Feyerabend states that in the human society there is "science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position and power" only. At least his empirical search has found nothing else. Could you please give examples of the first alternative that you mention?

Evgenii


On 07.01.2012 12:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:
Hi Evgenii,

On 06 Jan 2012, at 19:14, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Bruno,

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
http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43842

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."

Hmm... Not sure I agree with this, but I have a larger conception of
 science that most scientist today. Personally I consider that
science is natural, and practiced by virtually all animals. Babies
makes theories and update them all the time. Science becomes good
science when it stays modest and conscious of the hypothetical
character of all theories. In fact I do not believe in "Science", I
believe only in "scientific attitude", which is really nothing more
than curiosity, doubting and modesty.




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

I disagree a lot with this, although some modern view of science
might be like that, notably "naturalism". A lot of naturalist seems
to take for granted the primitive existence of a universe, or of
matter or nature. Once we take *anything* for granted, we just stop
doing science for doing ideology, which is only "bad religion". Of
course "human science" is not scientific most of the time, and I am
talking about "ideal science".

Hmm... I agree with Feyerabend on Galileo, but that might be the only
 point where I agree with him, to be honest.



Other quotes that I like are at

http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/01/feyerabend-against-science.html

I took a look, and I really think that Feyerabend confuses science
and science-done-by-weak-human in search of food, position and
power. In a sense I believe that the scientific era has existed among
a few intellectual only from -500 to +500. After that, the most
fundamental science, which I think is theology, has been politicized.
The enlightenment period was only 1/2 enlightened, because its main
subject, the reason why we are here, has remained a political taboo.
The whole "human science" remains in practice based on the worst of
all arguments: "the boss is right.".

Bruno

--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to