Talk:Paul Feyerabend

It is pretty ironic how a wiki that anyone can contribute to claims that epistemological anarchism is the dumpling of the devil, isn't it? On a more serious note, what Feyerabend meant by epistemological anarchism is that these ideas, no matter how cranky they may be, should be open to expression so that they can be torn down through discourse publicly. Taking things for granted raises questions, while such refutals strengthen trust and certainty, while also encouraging skepticism. 95.14.129.243 (talk)

I thought the point of epistemological anarchism was that science wouldn't work as well when restricted by Popper's views? So science needs to be allowed to pursue any method to reach it's end result. Which unfortunately let's all kinds of woo in. Lerjj (talk) 17:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem with that is you end up with a bunch of stuff that does not work out at all. There is a reason we don't use crystals, homeopathy, or other things like that to cure people. Because they don't work. Also while anyone can edit this wiki, you do need sources for your claims and many pages on here have been reverted because of unsubstantiated claims.Machina (talk) 21:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Demonisation of Feyerabend

I'm not for a minute saying that Feyerabend's ideas should be accepted wholesale and uncritically. That said, he was an incredibly influential figure in the sociology of science and, as far as I know, his criticism of science and the idea of a universal scientific method are fundamentally sound. That doesn't mean that it follows that science should be democratised (one of his loonier ideas) or that we should accept pseudoscience uncritically. I feel that a better effort should be made to elucidate his ideas in a more fair and objective way and also in the context of his hatred of authoritarianism in general (probably informed by his personal experience of totalitarianism). I mean no disrespect but at the moment the article reads like the Conservapedia article on Nancy Pelosi. 78.18.98.28 (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think his "criticism of science" is sound. That aside, all you have said seems reasonable. The article as it stands is uncharitable: hardly any effort has been expended in trying to understand his views. Be this as it may, I would be anxious not to remove the valid aspects of the current snark that are directed at his more unusual (bizarre?) views. For instance his being the founder of "Eliminative Materialism" and the Churchlands basically ripping-off his thesis, merits expansion. Leucippus^Talk 21:22, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph detailing the description of Feyerabend as a defender of science by Kidd, who was already listed as a source in the article (with some caveats). I don't have a lot of time to carefully read everything Kidd says, though, or to see if anybody else agrees with him, so somebody else should probably do that. Serene (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Serene. I don't know much about Feyerabend nor do I have much of an interest in his views (for the time being anyway). As you say, somebody else could do it. Leucippus^Talk 21:27, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

It has to be said as well that he was sort of an iconoclastic "punk rock" figure in philosophy like Nietzsche. He had some really silly ideas like the democratisation of science but he made it clear that you shouldn't take him (or anything else for that matter) too seriously, sort of like an ivory tower Eric André or Chris Morris. A lot of what he wrote was not meant to be taken as gospel but to provoke and aggravate the pompous and holier-than-thou among scientists and philosophers of science. If you're interested, here's a nice summary of his ideas from Youtube. 78.18.98.28 (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)