Post-Kuhnian Philosophy of Science: Paul Feyerabend (1 of 2)

[@bettermentprojectnotes808]

Wow, you are a very passionate lecturer! Glad to find such high quality content on Phi of Sci and I’m looking forward to more of your videos!

[@SisyphusRedeemed]

Thank you for saying so. I'm glad you found it worth your while.

[@joshuajones3915]

Amazing how little attention goes into "hypothesis generation", even when it is such an overwhelmingly important aspect of the scientific enterprise! You captured not just his philosophy but his spirit brilliantly. Thank you.

[@SisyphusRedeemed]

I'm glad you appreciated it!

[@sujayraomandavilli4732]

We will wait patiently for via media solutions

[@birdie3313]

This is so fun thank you, your analysis communicated the spirit of Feyerabend beautifully.

[@EmoxNful]

I didn't get it when Feyerabend were discussed during lecture, but you laid it out in a very comprehensible way! This will really help me write my essay! Thank you so much!

[@nakulheroor3617]

I really like the passion with which the ideas are put across, while not taking anything away from the content and presentation

[@ej3281]

I have a copy of For and Against Method somewhere! In this copy, Lakatos's positions were "ghostwritten" by Matteo Motterlini. :)

[@MKwan82]

Thank you so very much. I was trying to write a paper on the difference in Kuhn's and Feyerabend. This is the only video that sums it up that clearly and precisely.

[@SisyphusRedeemed]

You're welcome. Glad you found it useful.

[@JFrameMan]

Amazing video. Really love your straight forward descriptions.

[@baldgalruru]

So fun. Thank you for your insight on Feyerabend. I hope you do an introduction to the crisis of science and post-normal science as an answer to it.

[@szoszos1]

I do not know who you are but I enjoyed your lecture, many thanks for sharing it.

[@nazarmerza1]

Excellent presentation!

[@evanm2911]

This is what my undergraduate thesis tried to have as an intro/topic, and were it not for extenuating life circumstances, may have been. May have actually been able to contribute to the discussion instead of half-assing it myself. You didn't, so thank you.

[@thebigcapitalism9826]

It isn’t too late to improve on it

[@Flatscores]

I'm glad to still see you around, one of the (sadly) few youtube atheists from the days of yore who still seems sane.

[@SisyphusRedeemed]

Yeah, I share the disappointment with 'the community'. Part of the reason why I'm focusing on science, rather than religion for now.

[@Flatscores]

I understand. Though I definitely wouldn't mind another harsh criticism of Molyneux, haha.

[@bijanshadnia3620]

This was great. Thank you

[@earthjustice01]

Everything that Feyerabend says about science could also be said about philosophy, and with even greater emphasis.

[@quote3000]

Well, maybe in terms of epistemology though. I mean it's not called epistemological anarchism for nothing.

[@jakeschroedersk8y]

Great lecture. Just wanted to point out that Aristotle preceded Ptolemy by about 400 years. You say around 18 minutes that “Aristotle endorsed Ptolemy’s view”, which makes it sound as if Aristotle read Ptolemy. Anyway, I appreciate the lecture very much.

[@sujayraomandavilli4732]

Epistemology has no value if there is rigidity in thinking or dogma. Personal attributes and objectivity of mindset also count. Ideologies interfere with objectivity too, as well as cultural bias.

[@CousinoMacul]

It's funny. Feyerabend's defense of "wrong or implausible" theories reminds me a lot of Mathematicians' defenses of funding research into "pure math." I find that similarity very interesting.

[@austinreynolds7085]

Very interesting - great report on a fascinating mind!

[@elderlyoogway]

Yeess! Thank you Prof. Garret! Your content is incredible, cheers from Brazil.

[@BabelRedeemed]

Yes, this is a treat to see updates to this series! Greetings from Japan.

[@Jomarina11]

Excellent! Have you commented on the governments' around the world use of the order to 'Follow the Science'?

[@chasekaltner8431]

Fantastic explanation. Really helping me in my Philosophy of science class.

[@catalinamillan1985]

This video is gold, thank you very much

[@EsPoReNg]

Nice video, it made me pick up Against Method. I read an introduction of philosophy of science a few months ago and Feyerabend was my favorite of the bunch.

[@Kygreyfox]

Really well done

[@Knaeben]

Very interesting lecture.

[@gabrieladelmann9307]

What would Feyerabend had said about the demarcation problem between science and pseudoscience? And what would he have said about "non-platforming"?

[@SisyphusRedeemed]

Oh, he thinks that pretty much all of the big distinctions in 20th century philosophy of science are rubbish. Any attempt to demarcate science from pseudoscience would have bad consequences for science. Historically a lot of the most important scientific discoveries were considered (by very smart people) to be pseudoscience (even if they didn't use that term.) He thinks we should let a thousands flowers bloom. The good ones will stick around, the bad ones will die off.

[@leonardotavaresdardenne9955]

@@SisyphusRedeemed that sounds very "market place of ideas"

[@Jan96106]

I fully, fully agree with him about the dogmatic arrogance of scientists. That's also why I like Popper: an accepted theory has not been falsified YET. I like that Popper said a theory can never be proven correct once and for all. Yes, science is the new church, at least in physics and nutrition.

[@niallocuilleanain81]

Great lecturer

[@thabompofu6630]

Am writing Philosophy of science exam tomorrow and hopefully we'll be questioned on Feyerabend's theory😊....

[@jordanpeterson8414]

Wow thank you for the inteoduction, because im also such a toll against lawers

[@jakecarlo9950]

Fantastic. Thank you.

[@akmashfaq7815]

great analysis

[@ahsensancak5200]

I have a question. What is as important to Feyerabend as the religion-science pair? religion-state nature-science science-state religion-nature

[@ahsensancak5200]

I'd be happy if you see and make a comment about this question

[@kanishkasinha]

Why the hell would anybody dislike this video? Weird.

[@thabompofu6630]

They are being Feyerabend, they are trolling 😂

[@biancavanzile2473]

Thanks man, very helpful

[@luisathought]

Thank You

[@farhanurmiah2635]

thanks for the video

[@OlejzMaku]

The way Feyerabend interprets evidence against Galileo, makes me think he did not understand the science. Demonstration of the parallax is something his contemporaries might have demanded from him, that would disprove geocentric models, but it's in no way evidence against Galileo. His argument against geocentrism was phases of Venus and existence of moons of Jupiter, which clearly do not revolve around Earth. The tower does not do anything relating to heliocentrism.

[@AdrienLegendre]

You are correct. Feyerabend bends the truth to author a provocative book.

[@overtonwindowshopper]

Feyerabend was really just subtweeting all engineers so hard lmao

[@jhnxavier]

Where _all_ these self-defeating _"facts can be obtained by way of opinion"_ theories fail: In order to _debunk_ an objective method for an alternative one, one has to factually 'substantiate' _why_ an alternative method works better...

[@alternateperson6600]

That makes no sense. Feyerabend is not trying to debunk the "objective" method because that'd be inconsistent with his claim that no method can be ruled out. Feyerabend's philosophy of science is a rejection of the demarcation problem, as such he accepts the possibility that non-scientific methods (from pure conjecture down to the axiomatic-deductive system) can produce true and cogent statements. It's the burden of those who affirm demarcation to substantiate said objectivity.

[@mitranimukherjee4844]

Very helpful

[@JeremyBaziw]

I love the rant at 15:15 lol

[@MrChukinorris]

"they are trolls for a good cause" xD

[@tgenov]

A gadfly then :)

[@TiBiAstro]

Isn't this how the Flat Earth Society began?

[@ZoiusGM]

My thoughts on various timestamps of this video: 20:28 Okay but this happens in the scientific community; scientists look different perspectives of the evidence and methods; so in these modern years, as far as I know, this is not a problem. 20:45 Sure, but 'we' should be based on existing evidence and not talk out of our asses off course; Feyerabend supports this and you mentioned it too at some point in the video. 20:51 It doesn't matter if it is 'drudge' work, it is necessary and important. 23:53 Even if we try this, how many new theories can we come up all the time? This demands time, effort and money to make observations and experiments which then may give new info so that we can make new theories; we can't just make up new theories all the time. 11:43 Newtonian physics did not get disproven; they work fine but work differently than Einstein's theories of relativity. Both are true and proven to work. 3:12 This is why we have a few procedures and not only one to follow; different circumstances demand different methods and procedures.

[@Uhlbelk]

Since when is newtonian physics wrong?

[@SisyphusRedeemed]

If you treat them as universals, as Newton did, we've known it's wrong since circa 1919.

[@Uhlbelk]

This is a problem with a lot of examples you used. Thalidomide works fine, it is an excellent drug that did not cause cancer and worked exceptionally well for its designed purpose. Finding out later that it was dangerous to fetuses does not mean anything was wrong with the science. Newtonian physics works perfect for the majority of non-quantum purposes which is all Newton knew, hence for him they were universal. A lot of post hoc reasoning in these videos.

[@tbayley6]

Uhlbelk You're kind of highlighting the point, which is that 'perfect' and 'universal' are sentiments, relative to a state of play. They are not absolutes. And yet science can find it very hard to question them. Perhaps the beauty that Einstein spoke of is too beguiling.

[@tgenov]

Or we can stop beating around the bush and accept that all models are wrong, but some are useful. It's kind of implied by the word "model" I think?

[@AdrienLegendre]

Since 1905. Newton says time intervals are invariant, same for all observers. Experiment shows space-time interval is invariant, not time interval alone. This is early 20th century physics.

[@jeddmochowski4857]

Excellent: 2020-21: the year of the tyranny of bad science!

[@essadababneh5871]

So Paul Feyerabend was the Milo of his time?

[@josealzaibar5274]

Science has indeed become the New Church lol. Scientism runs rampant today and while science qua science is indeed not like religion the way that sciencitific is communicated to the laymen is basically no different from priests preaching orthodox doctrine.

[@caterinabiagi4742]

🦧

[@lebenstraum666]

Einstein and Galileo are complete opposites. Galileo's theories were not called 'beautiful'. Einstein's theorizing leads to logical paradoxes which Galileo's do not. End of question.

[@quote3000]

Now wait a minute, you're saying Kepler was wrong?

[@AdrienLegendre]

You are confused. Speed of light experimentally is constant for all observers. This conflict's with Galileo's relativity theory, but agrees with Einstein Relativity Theory.