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
Paul Feyerabend's critique of science equates it to religion, arguing that the rigid adherence to rationalism and the scientific method can lead to dogmatism. Critics acknowledge that while scientific principles have driven significant discoveries, many breakthroughs arise from chance or emotional inspiration, influenced by external factors like funding and politics. The discussion highlights the elitism within the scientific community, where non-scientists often feel alienated, similar to how religious truths are communicated. Despite the hyperbolic nature of the "science as religion" claim, it reflects a reality where a small group controls scientific knowledge, necessitating better public engagement from scientists. Ultimately, while Feyerabend's views provoke debate, they underscore the importance of recognizing the complexities and limitations of scientific practice.
  • #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
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
11K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
853