On 07.01.2012 17:21 John Clark said the following:
On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>

You are free to express your opinion and I am free to express
mine. Don't
you agree?

Yes, and Feyerabend should be free to say anything that pops into his
head no matter how silly, and I should be free to call him an idiot
for doing so.

If you believe that Feyerabend contradicts with historical
research, it
would be more meaningful instead of using propaganda to show his
mistakes in history.

The problem is not historical research, I have no disagreement with
any of the facts Feyerabend presents, I do however have a massive
disagreement with his opinion regarding those facts, such as:

"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason
than Galileo himself" or "its verdict against Galileo was rational
and just".

Frankly it just boggles my mind that well into the 21'st certury
somebody could read those lines and NOT call their author a complete

The conclusion that Feyerabend made is based on his historical research. I personally have found his book quite logical, so I go not get what you are saying.

I personally find the use of the word 'Idiot' inappropriate.

Would "fool" be more appropriate, how about "moron"? Apparently you
do think the word "idiot" should be removed from the English
language, I disagree. I believe there is solid evidence that idiots
do in fact exist and the language needs a word to describe someone
who behaves idiotically and "idiot" is a excellent candidate for such
a word. And off the top of my head I can't think of a better example
of an idiot than Feyerabend; assuming he was not just trying to be
provocative and get attention, in which case he was not a idiot but
only a hypocrite.

We have two opinions, one is yours and ones is Feyerabend's. They are different, and I find it normal. Yet, if we talk about science then you have to explain with the historical facts why you believe that Feyerabend is idiot. So far from your side, there were just emotions, that is pure propaganda. If you have made a research on Galileo where you have shown the opposite, please make a link.

Brent has recently made a good statement:

"That's why progress in knowledge relies on empirical evidence, not ratiocination."

So it would be good to consider real historical events without ideology.

This term is more appropriate for propaganda but not for science.

OK but why change the subject, what's Feyerabend got to do with

It depends on a definition. I personally consider Feyerabend as a scientist.


John K Clark

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