Hi PGC It seems to me that John has just misunderstood Feyerabend. Unsuprising given his misunderstanding of Popper not to mention Darwin.
Feyerabend is not really defending the church here. Hes making the point that in order to get his theory out and give it life Galileo had to at some stage abandone pretty much every methodological principle falsificationists, and philosophers of science generally, hold dear. From a Popperian point of view Galileo ought to be regarded as unscrupulous and the church should be regarded as the more reasonable party in the affair. Feyerabend infact champions Galileo's anarchic approach and regards philosophical attempts to prescribe a single method scientists must follow as backward and stultifying. The irony is that John should really be championing Feyerabend because no-one has ever attacked philosophical attempts to define science with greater wit and venom. But it all flies right over his head. Thats if you assume he isnt just flaming. All the best. --- Original Message --- From: "Platonist Guitar Cowboy" <multiplecit...@gmail.com> Sent: 10 September 2013 5:49 AM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: What gives philosophers a bad name? On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:42 PM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > > I do not like very much Feyerabend, and disgaree with its overal >> philosophy of science, I do agree with him on Galileo. >> > > OK so let me get this straight, you agree that "the church at the time of > Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself", you think > somebody wanting to burn somebody else alive for saying the earth goes > around the sun is much more faithful to reason than the scientist who said > it. Bruno, at this point I really don't want to hear any more crap about > "comp", right now I just want to know if that is what you're really trying > to say. > > Being provocative is all well and good, but not to the point of stupidity. > I think I'm beginning to see how this constitutes an actual argument in John Clark's world... You love to be provocative, which is why its all "well and good", revealing today clearly, your penchant for linguistic gaming to intimidate and impress yourself. That's not very scientific, even by your standards. Bruno's statement is consistent with his work. Your statements are consistent with some personalized interpretation of McDonald's reviewed Big Macs. It's you playing rationality's messianic priest here with ad hominem again. But this simply indicates you are perhaps as pompous, arrogant, and insecure, as more and more people are understanding in these lists of late. > > > Galileo was blinded >> > > Blinded? BLINDED!? Were talking about Galileo and the church but it's > Galileo who was blinded!? This is yet another thing that gives philosophy a > bad name, I may have heard stupider remarks in my life but I can't think of > one right now. > Try reading your own text once, after you write it, with scientific distance instead of vanity. You might find some stupidity in there just like the rest of us to from time to time. Concerning the point: yes "blinded", of course. Replacing one model of reality forcefully for another is a violent act. Doesn't matter if Church or your messiah Galileo. Or do you want to make an argument for "why John Clark should tell people how to live"? What gives philosophy a bad name, adopting your provocative view and tone, is that it is yet another set of perspectives that will not be bullied by John Clark 5th grade size comparisons of intellectual genitalia and precise judgements and conclusions á la "this is stupid!". So, I see it's hard for you, but keep your caterwauling down, lest you scare away everybody who'd want to be part of John Clark's empire of the church of the scientific bombastic, exposing "stupidity" for the rest of the world. PGC > > John K Clark > > > -- > 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to email@example.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.