Feyerabend's view (and my greetings)

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
SirEyes
Posts: 11
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2014 5:27 pm

Feyerabend's view (and my greetings)

Unread post by SirEyes » Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:58 am

Hello everyone, this is my first post!
So nice to be here, after a lot of videos I saw on the subject.
Unfortunately my understanding of.. electricity ends with a resistor :mrgreen: so I don't know if I will ever be able to contribute on the physics.
But I hope I can contribute on the logics, on the rationality.
In fact, I start with a small introduction of "Against the method" by Paul Feyerabend, which I believe can fit this section.
Well in his view (and in mine, too) there is no such thing as a scientific method. You can never claim certainty. Feyerabend even rejects Popper's position "you can falsify for sure, you cannot validate for sure". And he offers an example.
You may recall Galileo's opposition to Vatican Church, you were probably tought that Galileo was right, as for the "method".
According to Feyerabend report, he wasn't. His strange tool, the telescope :shock: had an inconsistent behaviour: some lights you saw bigger (the planets), some lights you saw smaller (stars).
So that was a falsification. The telescope is crap.
Or maybe not, if you had the patience to wait until Abbe's work on diffraction you would finally have learned that the behaviour of the telescope was correct.

Another example: Tycho Brahe. He was no supporter of copernican view, so he followed some theory I believe nobody would call "scientific".
Still, Kepler's laws are hugely based on Tycho work.
Because Tycho's work, his data, were scientific, i.e. they were replicable.
So you can do scientific stuff even if you believe in Santa.
Or, you can do crap even if you believe in an aknowledged scientific theory (whatever "acknowledged" can mean).

My personal opinion is that the only scientific part are the data. If you start tagging other things as scientific (a theory, a method, a community, a personal framework of belief) you soon find yourself soaked in dogmas.

As a conclusion, just to keep this post in topic: which is the future of science? My opinion is that the so called "science" is keeping doing the same errors since centuries. Halton Arp said we should investigate why science failed in self-correcting itself. I'm not sure we can expect this more than we can expect it from other human disciplines.
But I nevertheless think that a small group of people can still change lot of things.
Have a nice day!

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests