Hi Glen, It took me a while to find where I read that argument. But, as it turns out, the argument was recounted by John Horgan in his *The End of Science *(1996) the first paragraph at the top of page 47 in the chapter titled "The End of Philosophy." There, Horgan was recounting the argument put forth by philosopher Paul Feyerabend who wrote in his *Against Method* [p 295]:
“The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation > of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic > religious institution.” Horgan writes: Feyerabend also objected to the claim that science is superior to other > modes of knowledge. He was particularly enraged at the tendency of Western > states to foist the products of science--whether the theory of evolution, > nuclear power plants, or gigantic particle accelerators--on people against > their will. "There is separation between state and church," he complained, > "but none between state and church. Paul Feyerabend has been called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 *Nature *essay <http://Paul Feyerabend, called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 Nature essay.>. Maybe this is just one reason among many <https://www.quora.com/Is-it-common-among-scientists-to-scorn-philosophy> why it is perceived that scientists--especially physicists--dislike philosophers. But no public funding for science research?! What's not to like? 🤔 Robert On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 9:43 AM, glen ⛧ <geprope...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Is there any chance you might remember where you read that argument? I'll > do some googling; but that can be pretty haphazard. > > On 05/17/2016 02:43 PM, Robert Wall wrote: > > There was a thought-provoking argument I read somewhere recently about > the federal grants given to scientific research. Given that science > research like with Super-String Theory is and has been arguably bleeding > over into metaphysics, philosophy, or even religion (e.g., Edward Witten), > we may need to amend the US Constitution to include a clause [or intention] > for the separation between science and state. This action would imply that > any and all scientific research would need to stand on its own. This might > be overkill, but the objective is kind of in the wheelhouse for the newly > emerging Center for Open Science <https://cos.io/>--an institution that > arose with the expose of bad science studies in medicine < > http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/> > found in science journals and reported > > < > https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiM3e3rhuLMAhVX3mMKHZxNBE8QFgguMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournals.plos.org%2Fplosmedicine%2Farticle%3Fid%3D10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020124&usg=AFQjCNGnlrRZK18zALFoV13bVKFpywymjg&sig2=erIO_WZ6jK3DgZsqfdLu2w&bvm=bv.122129774,d.cGc> > by Dr. John Ioannidis last decade. > > -- > ⛧ glen > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com >
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
