Paul feyearabend and his take on the state of science

  • Thread starter Thread starter noblegas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Science State
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

Paul Feyerabend's philosophy equates modern science with religion, arguing that the rigid adherence to rationalism and the scientific method transforms science into a dogma. Critics assert that while alternative approaches to scientific inquiry exist, the scientific method has historically yielded the most reliable results. Discussions highlight the influence of external factors such as funding and politics on scientific practice, suggesting that scientists often operate within an elitist framework that alienates the general public. Ultimately, while Feyerabend's claims may be provocative, they underscore the necessity for scientists to engage more effectively with society.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Paul Feyerabend's philosophy of science
  • Familiarity with the scientific method and rationalism
  • Knowledge of the influence of external factors on scientific research
  • Awareness of the relationship between science and public perception
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Paul Feyerabend's major works, particularly "Against Method"
  • Explore the impact of funding and politics on scientific research outcomes
  • Study the role of public engagement in science communication
  • Investigate alternative methodologies in scientific inquiry
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers of science, researchers in academia, science communicators, and anyone interested in the intersection of science and society will benefit from this discussion.

  • #31
noblegas said:
People were athiestic during stalin's reign of soviet russia, but they were all devoted to Soviet Union and Stalin

Stalin was an advocate of communism and used state atheism as a way of stamping out the church's power. There are plenty of religious people in the Soviet Union. It was just dangerous to say so, much like it has been for atheists for thousands of years.

And while that might not technically invoke Godwin's law, close enough for me. Sigh.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
JoeDawg said:
I did, Democritus predates Plato, and Plutarch, and he had no such 'rational god', a phrase I find rather amusing considering the Judeo-christian god is anything but rational. Petty and vindictive, for sure, but rational?? That is historical revisionism.

No, I just think the 'rational god' thing is nonsense. Gods are invariably wrathful and vain, and usually, and certainly in the major religions, represent aspects of human nature taken to an extreme. They do not represent a moderate rational view. Even the various love-gods were not rational. And the gods of Ancient Greece and Rome were anything but rational. On top of that, as I mentioned, it was quite common for those who didn't believe in gods to be the emprical sort. Plato may have advocated rational thought, but it was mostly based on his view that geometry implied a perfection to the universe. He then attributed this to gods. But geometry is a human thing. Nothing in nature is a perfect circle.


One of the things that Socrates was accused of was atheism. He was put to death.
Gee, I wonder why more people didn't admit to being atheists.
Not a lot of homosexuals until modern times either, I guess.
This sort of persecution continued throughout history, and is generally not conducive to public expressions of lack of belief in the supernatural.

Religion is about revealed truth. The truth of what was on Moses tablets, the truth of the Qur'an, the truth of what Jesus said. From the beginning, even in the east, religions have been about a small number of people telling everyone else how to live. Its about control and being part of the tribe of belief. This is why we have a word like 'heresy', and where the hindu caste system comes from. Even within religions truth is mandated, not discovered. You may want to separate religion and dogma, but history shows this is not the case, and was never so.


And as an atheist, I find your equivocation of being rational with believing in the supernatural quite insulting.

fine. have it your way. there is no more to discuss.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
12K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K