Whew! I'm a huge fan of Feyerabend. For a minute I was afraid you were allowing wackos like this guy:
http://youtu.be/8XjR9f0DZJc I tend to think the way out of the trap is through citizen science (eg DIYBio and our own friends at GUTS). To some extent anything in big science must be gov funded. Even if you don't call it "government", it's still pooled resources with minority management, which implies a government of some sort. And anytime a minority make judgments for the majority, we'll hear cries of bias and for "separation". The real measure of progress is watching how scientific experiments that used to be only doable by big science are now doable by citizens in their garage. As long as that happens, we have to admit there's an important role for government funded science. If we don't get our own high energy colliders we can run on saw horses in our garage, _then_ we'll push for a Constitutional amendment. Anyway, arguments like this are why so many scientists think little of Horgan. His arguments are rife with over simplification. Yahoos like Mike Adams <http://www.naturalnews.com/About.html> use similar rhetoric, which is unfortunate for relatively authentic people like Horgan. On 05/18/2016 12:58 PM, Robert Wall wrote: > It took me a while to find where I read that argument. But, as it turns out, > the argument was recounted by John Horgan in his /The End of Science /(1996) > the first paragraph at the top of page 47 in the chapter titled "The End of > Philosophy." There, Horgan was recounting the argument put forth by > philosopher Paul Feyerabend who wrote in his /Against Method/ [p 295]: > > “The separation of state and church must be complemented by the > separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most > dogmatic religious institution.” > > > Horgan writes: > > Feyerabend also objected to the claim that science is superior to other > modes of knowledge. He was particularly enraged at the tendency of Western > states to foist the products of science--whether the theory of evolution, > nuclear power plants, or gigantic particle accelerators--on people against > their will. "There is separation between state and church," he complained, > "but none between state and church. > > > Paul Feyerabend has been called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 /Nature > /essay. Maybe this is justone reason among many > <https://www.quora.com/Is-it-common-among-scientists-to-scorn-philosophy> why > it is perceived that scientists--especially physicists--dislike philosophers. > But no public funding for science research?! What's not to like? 🤔 -- ⛧ glen ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
