Paul Feyerabend: The Worst Enemy of Science

[@bonemo7783]

He’s an enemy of scientism.

[@konberner170]

Greatest friend of science.

[@springinfialta106]

Scientists's dismissiveness and general dislike for philosophy: The Worst Enemy of Science.

[@karlklosschen4544]

Would be interesting if you publish the second part.

[@TheSpinachInfluenza]

It is a wonder that I cannot recall these studies! These concepts are spectacular and revolutionary, in line with current events as well as my own experiences, science has merits we cannot deny, but I learned what it was like to try to get through that well entrenched stone wall of responses, growing up with my Psychology Professor father, and learned tricks for which to help him understand me from the very same- how lucky I was to have such a contradictory teacher & only now realize as much!. I am excited to learn more from this philosophy and love the way you have delivered it! Our intellectual movements could benefit from some required reading In intellectual virtue

[@ScientificGenius]

Thank you for your time and kind words!

[@scythermantis]

SPOILER ALERT: There's no such thing as 'good faith', just as there's no such thing as the 'scientific method'.

[@logos3522]

What about Aristotle. Is he not the worst enemy of modernity on every front

[@hssz23]

It seems that variations in science outcomes would be explained by limiting factors. When is the next video coming out ?

[@Jacob_Hoffmeister]

Liebe für Feyerabend ❤

[@vicentekfdrw4875]

I have a love hate with continental philosophy, because on the one hand I find it very interesting and imaginative, but on the other I despise how unclear and allegorical writing it is. I feel that this happens with Feyerabend, in his search to create a new paradigm in epistemology (which he partially achieved), he wrote in a way so different from what we are used to reading in epistemology, that his ideas can easily be understood as if was making an apology for pseudoscience. But, it is simpler to say that Fayerabend concluded that the scientific method is not universal, and therefore is not objective, because all disciplines, in practice, have different methods.

[@vicentekfdrw4875]

It reminds me of Émilie du Châtelet's studies on Newtonian mechanics and Newton's thought in general.

[@johnaugsburger6192]

Thanks

[@artielukas888]

Awesome vid man. This deserves many more views!

[@wertyupanoptikus9787]

The problem I have with Feyerabend is that I cannot identify this supposed criticism that he proposes as a constructive alternative but that it simply manifests itself as a defense of old forms disconnected from reality that in my opinion are a kind of postmodern rebellion against certain questionable assumptions of the positivism. Questioning the positivism that has distorted science to be the supposed replacement of religion is more than necessary and welcome, the issue is that it is questioned and I think that is where Feyerabend is wrong. I don't think it's wrong to question dogmatism when it even tries to take shape through science, the issue is that Feyerabend's proposal that anything goes and that it does not matter to teach pseudosciences, religions and other superstitions with science doesn't trully generate an overcoming alternative but rather maintains old and retrograde dogmatic conceptions that, unlike science, tend to blind and distance us from reality in pursuit of the search for a false and immediate certainty. Instead it only tries to pretend some sort of revolutionary view using old and conservative views that are as bad as positivism. For my part, I prefer the descriptions that only science provides for the moment, not as a religious criterion to be followed unquestionably since it is the very nature of science to question, but by questioning it is not necessary to give rise to the denied ignorance of many others. forms of vulgar knowledge. It is losing sight of the objective for which we come to create a conception like that of science itself. I do not believe that the paradigm shift proposed by a scientific approach to reality seeks to replace religion but simply to understand why it is counterproductive to stagnate in it and other forms that, in my opinion, disengage with the environment by immersing oneself excessively in subjectivity and imagination. Creativity is fundamental in our understanding but let the fantasy of our assumptions not replace the reality that we seek to describe with mere illusions. I'm open to the idea of search for something that surpasses science as a method of understanding, but as long as it does not involve repeating errors and shortcomings of the approaches that we abandoned with justified reasons. I liked how you exposed the ideas without any sort of defense or detraction of their arguments, although they are mostly not valid to me. Sorry for the long writing and the bad english, i love this videos you are making because they really put things in perspective, things that shouldn't be ignored and considered, at least to avoid repeating mistakes as society.

[@konberner170]

His point is that there is no reliable demarcation criteria in science, therefore "anything goes" when it comes to hypothesis. He clearly stated that while he loves science, he despised supposed "scientist" talking as if they have found absolute truth. His problem was only dogmatism roleplaying as science. He made this even more clear in his autobiography: Killing Time.

[@wertyupanoptikus9787]

@@konberner170 That is the part i can agree with him, but there are like i said other arguments that doesn't seem very reliable in my opinion.

[@konberner170]

​@@wertyupanoptikus9787 To understand Paul, he spend years going to various universities and giving lectures on astrology. When he was asked why he liked astrology so much, his reply was that he though astrology was completely bogus in regard to the stars somehow controlling human fate on earth, but that is because he took the time to study it in depth and find that there can be value in understanding the archetypes and such. He gave these lectures for the reason that professors would come in and claim astrology was worthless, and he would ask them to present their evidence of this. Of course, they couldn't do this... they had heard it was bogus, believed it, and promoted this view like a religion. He was trolling, but not for no reason. He was trolling to expose the "scientism" that was passing for science. This is why, for me, Paul was and still is the greatest friend of real science, and the greatest enemy of dogmatic presumptuous creeps who successfully pass as scientists.

[@wertyupanoptikus9787]

@@konberner170 I understand what you say, for me the problem is when someone who truly believes in something like astrology and concepts like fate attempt to use Feyerabend statements as a literal validation or defense of those beliefs when if what you are saying about his intentions is true he was trying to counter the dogmatism of "scientists" not defend another kind of dogmatism. I know people could distort things as they please, we all do all the time but that's what i found contradictory about him: why appeal to pseudociencies like astrology to prove his point?

[@konberner170]

@@wertyupanoptikus9787 Validation of what beliefs? Jung showed how the astrological archetypes can have value. Apparently not scientific value, but this tendency to crap over things that these "scientists" don't understand is not science. It is a form of twisted materialist religion posing as science. That is his point, it is a true point, and it stifles real science to avoid it.

[@michaelransom5841]

while the points made have an element of validity, I think we are conflating two different issues here, science and philosophy. Inseparable, but often uncomfortable bedfellows. Science, when taken by it's strict definition, is fairly agnostic when it comes to ethics or interpretation, and is also limited in it's application for that same reason. By definition, science is the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. Observation and experiment.. there is little to argue with there, and this says nothing of the value of reason or what defines the concept of value.. it just is. What motivates someone to partake in science, what the goals of that science are, and what conclusions we draw from that science, that's where philosophy starts to creep in. If scientists and the public truly separated science from philosophy, there would be no interpretation, just statement of fact. pure science reads, when x is applied to y under conditions z, w has been observed to take place XX% of the times observed. The conditions under which this was observed have an uncertainty of Y due to (facts about the limits of equipment etc.). Then a matter of fact statement on whether there were any observations that would suggest that the result may or may not be reproducible... There is no reason here... just statements of facts about the behaviour or structure of some aspect of the natural world under the specific conditions observed. Robotic, clean, and objective, but nothing like the way we think, or what we are satisfied with.. so philosophy creeps in... we value the objectivity for it's ability to provide "truth", another idea we hold as "valuable", itself born out of the idea that a thing is "good" if it is desirable, and it is desirable if it is useful to us. but now we are in the realm of ethics, what is good?, what is bad? if something benefits you, but harms another, where does it stand then? This is where the modern scientific method gets in to trouble, because "it" or rather the people who espouse it's "value", has a hard time admitting where the one ends and the other begins. And in our modern vernacular, "science" is just as much about the philosophy of the value of objectivity, and the claim that those who conduct science are the guardians of "truth", despite all their own biases and personal philosophies, as it is about the science itself. Pride, and fear, makes it hard to admit this though... because what is the alternative?? I am absolutely guilty of this myself, being a banner waving proponent for the scientific method and all that the philosophy of the value of logic and reason has brought us. I do fear the possibility of the rejection of "science" over belief, and the dark places that can lead. I get caught up in the propaganda, in the arguments for the merits of academia, and for fighting against the spread of false narratives, wishful thinking and logical fallacies. However, simply put, philosophy is not science, it is opinion and belief, sometimes that belief may be well justified, and it may be where the evidence points, but, as with all beliefs, there is always a chance that it is wrong. So my philosophy, right or wrong, is that it is never wrong to question, and one should be careful not to let themselves become defined by any particular belief, however tempting. Although it may be tempting to overstate my position to sway others to my point of view, I am at least willing to accept when the argument has slipped from the realm of science into philosophy, and maybe the world would be a better place if we all adopted that.... philosophy.

[@ScientificGenius]

These are all excellent questions to be asking, both of one's society and of one's self. Yes philosophy and science are different (Feyerabend does the former) but their relationship, much like that between philosophy and theology, is impossible to untangle completely. Since we're stuck with both, it's in our best interest to promote a symbiotic relationship. Feyerabend's anarchist tendency is, in his words, 'medicinal', in that he doesn't want science to collapse in chaos but rather to heal through co-operation with other traditions. Traditions outside of science are not always antagonistic, even though individuals may choose one over the other. The chance for mutual benefit can easily be overshadowed by the objectivity of science, which is certainly an advantage but is hardly the final solution for humanity and our communal lives.

[@Shrimp0kUgel]

Regarding "Robotic, clean, and objective", you should read "What is thing called science?" by Alan Chalmers. Like @Scienific Genius mentioned, there is complex relationship between philosophy and science, and is not as objective as you might think.

[@alrightmax2673]

Feyerabend concerned with the philosophy of science, so your assertion that he was "conflating two different issues here, science and philosophy " is wrong. For instance, the claim a method creates " just statements of facts about the behaviour or structure of some aspect of the natural world" presupposes rationalism. You have created a circular definition of science, to avoid the very issues PF was trying to engage with.

[@ThePositiveTarot]

"Conversations With Illiterstes"! Wow he was really a SAVAGE hey ❤😂

[@prince-solomon]

Science has been hijacked by materialism. They pretend their materialist reductionist ideology is equal to objective reality. Absolute nonsense of course. There is a reason why the great discoveries of the past were made by natural philosophers.

[@s.lazarus]

Paul Firebender

[@TD-ln2tg]

Fa-yair-a-bend is the pronunciation

[@austinmackell9286]

Some people like being led by the nose.

[@Livski.i]

do you have any work that is cite-able?