Philosophy of Science 10 - Against Method 1

[@Fakery]

Am I a Flat Earther now?

[@RahellOmer]

@Kane, are you using PowerPoint? Because I was wondering if we could get the slides you show? It would be really great and time-saving. Thanks!

[@KaneB]

I always delete the slides after the video is completed. However a lot of people have asked me this so maybe I should start uploading them somewhere. Do you have any suggestions on where to upload them? (I know of "image upload" websites like imgur but I'm not aware of any "powerpoint upload" websites.)

[@tonyesspunkt3430]

Kane B Hi Kaneb, thnx for this wonderful videos you share here - personally i think it would be best if you just upload the Powerpoint Files for download. In my experience Dropbox and Mediafire where the best and most reliable filehosting services.

[@RahellOmer]

Kane B Oh no, Kane knows not about the mighty Slideshare? In all seriousness though, Slideshare is an amazing platform, where you can upload (I think) unlimited presentations. P.s. slideshare.net Edit: just some other websites: Dropbox, Google Drive, OneDrive, Mediafire. Again, thanks!

[@KaneB]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will start uploading all my slideshows from now on.

[@CosmoShidan]

Great lecture on Feyerabend!

[@Drforbin941]

This is very interesting but, could we goto the moon using aristotelian theory

[@pectenmaximus231]

If it helps, pronunciation is FY-er-AH-bend instead of FY-er-uh-BEND. Great video series though, nice work.

[@Ofzah]

Hi Kane, is Feyarabends claim contingent on Galileo being a great scientist or Galileo being correct in his study? Let us perform a thought experiment where Galileo was wrong. In that hypothetical world is method saved?

[@ParkingCars]

Feyarabend’s claim is not reliant upon Galileo. He rather uses Galileo as an example to show where pure rationality fails to advance science. If Galileo is proven wrong all it takes is another scientist makes a paradigm that while not being backed by current methods, is found to be more accurate way of describing the world.

[@Ofzah]

@@ParkingCars this is actually false as Galileo is the paradigmatic example. If Galileo was wrong the integrity of method is preserved.

[@NoReprensentationWithoutTax]

Feierabend für Popper

[@uwefischer4595]

Feierabend meens...work of today is finished..

[@moculus2063]

Feyerbrand was one part pretentious pseudo-intellectual and another part prankster. Who would take seriously a person who barely dabbled in science - if not outright failed in their pursuit - and then goes around critiquing the work of grown adults. He's not contrarian. To be contrarian, you at least should have some standing in the field, so you can present unorthodox opinions about methods tried and failed . But Feyerbrand never tried. He has no actual method to speak of. No practice to his name. He's perched in the cheap seats bloviating about a subject he never sweated over or fought through. As a silly dilletante, he gives the word 'study' a bad reputation.

[@_VISION.]

You clearly misunderstood his message lol you also are making a lot of character shots and not actually making an argument for why you don't respect him. You seem threatened

[@raymanmufasa]

@@_VISION. Lool

[@raymanmufasa]

@João Silveira ou clearly misunderstood his message lol

[@pectenmaximus231]

And by the same logic of your tirade against Paul.. you clearly don’t understand his work? So you are in the cheap seats are you not? You criticise his not having a method.. and not having a method is the very thesis of his book “Against Method”...? But anyone who has to refer to their preferred party as “grown adults” in order to undermine opposing arguments likely is all puff anyway

[@9killerqueen]

If we take Mill's arguments for freedom of speech seriously, we should keep in mind that different people will have different personalities, different psychological make up, different skills and propensities. Freedom of speech is not just for a type of person who demonstrate certain preexisting qualities. Maybe Feyerabend was not a person who could pursue a career in physics because of his personality, but he had a mind that can poke accepted dogmas with his wit and humor. That being said, there is nothing in your comment that can be counted as an argument against his philosophy. You are just attacking his personality, as if there are rules describing who can and cannot be a philosopher. Maybe you should be more openminded and leave your prejudices at the door while studying someone's ideas.