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
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
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
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
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
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 firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at