
Was Paul Feyerabend Really Science's "Worst Enemy"? (2016) - commons-tragedy
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/was-philosopher-paul-feyerabend-really-science-s-worst-enemy/
======
osullivj
His insistence that there is no scientific method is pro-science. Science’s
only method is “opportunism,” he said. “You need a toolbox full of different
kinds of tools. Not only a hammer and pins and nothing else." This is what he
meant by his much-maligned phrase "anything goes" (and not, as is commonly
thought, that one scientific theory is as good as any other). Restricting
science to a particular methodology--such as Popper's falsification scheme or
Kuhn's “normal science”--would destroy it.

:s/science/software/g

~~~
jhbadger
Well, it's true that the cliched "scientific method" taught in high schools is
a gross oversimplification, and many discoveries are made by accident rather
than deliberately trying to test a clearly defined hypothesis. But in the
1980s-1990s "Science Wars", there was a movement by postmodernists to try to
claim that science is just an ideology no better than religion or magic. This
movement liked to quote Feyerabend and Kuhn regularly. That's why many working
scientists don't really have warm feelings towards philosophers of science in
general.

~~~
amatic
That sounds interesting. Do you have a recommendation for some reading
materials on those Science Wars?

~~~
jhbadger
I'd recommend Samir Okasha's "Philosophy of Science: A Very Short
Introduction" (one of those Oxford University Press "Very short introduction"
books that are only around 100 pages) as he has a short section on the Science
Wars, and then if you are interested in more, James Robert Brown's "Who Rules
in Science?: An Opinionated Guide to the Wars". Both Okasha and Brown are
philosophers of science themselves, and do cover both sides, but they are are
scientific realists in that they believe that scientific models do reflect to
some degree the reality of the universe.

------
jnwatson
Feyerabend's work reminds me a bit of Alvin Plantinga's.

As a young objectivist at university, I had the idealistic idea that if two
people could use logic and science to determine certain facts, they could
settle any disagreement, even moral ones.

However, science is built upon certain assumed first principles, like
causation and other minds sharing your reality. Plantinga argued that one
could start with additional first principles (he called "basic beliefs"), in
particular, belief in God.

In this way, two people might disagree without having any way to resolve
disagreements, because they don't share the same first principles.

Science does not have primacy here. It is just one of several ways to arrive
at knowledge.

~~~
ukj
Have you heard of Aumann’s agreement theorem? [1]

Consensus is possible, provided that the interlocutor have a shared goal and
maximize for information exchange.

Otherwise, the whole notion of discussing one’s “beliefs“ is philosophical
(non-empirical) nonsense. If I shut my mouth there is no way to empirically
determine whether “I believe in God or not”.

I don’t have beliefs - I have methods of various degrees of effectiveness that
get me what I want. To those ends knowledge is only instrumental. Which makes
me an unapologetic opportunist/pragmatist/instrumentalist.

To you it may be “knowledge” - that Earth is round, to me it is
inconsequential and immaterial even if I “believed“ (whatever that means)
Earth was triangular.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aumann%27s_agreement_theorem)

~~~
ordu
_> I don’t have beliefs - I have methods of various degrees of effectiveness
that get me what I want._

It is a self-contradictory claim. You believe in your methods. You believe
that your vision works by means of your methods, but how do you know this?
Take a look at a your hand, all your mind get from it is a bunch of "pixels"
from your retina, and by some means your mind construct a mental
representation named "hand". How your mind had learnt to do it? Did it use
bayesian learning or maybe it used some other mistaken method and your vision
fools you? Maybe in the basis of your bayesianism lays totally non-bayesian
vision? Maybe information about reality you have is not facts?

You fool yourself believing that you use bayesian reasoning. Mostly your mind
thinks for yourself by itself, all you can do is to get into your consiousness
some small part of reasoning and to check it with bayes. No one proved that it
is possible to build mind based on the bayesianism. Our computational
resources are weak for this. You cannot be a bayesian mind while you have no
ability to reflect all the reasoning of your mind, starting with individual
"pixels" from your retina as informational input and ending with claims like
"there is no God".

So you are believing that you are bayesian mind, and therefore Aumann's
theorem is applicable to you.

~~~
ukj
That's generally how all the Philosophy language-games work.

You claim that I've contradicted myself and then you go onto re-describe my
argument in your vocabulary. Ex falso sequitur quodlibet...

You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting mine,
while failing to realise that language itself is just another instrument. I
use it for communication.

Not only are you imposing your language onto me, you are trying to impose your
logic onto me also - failing to realise that logic is also just an instrument.

And in so far as you seem to care about contradictions - your dogma/religion
is the 'Law' of non-contradiction. It's a false God, a man-made authority.
Trivially side-stepped with either Dialetheism or Paraconsistent logic.

    
    
      Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large -- I contain multitudes. --Walt Whitman
    

Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, Structuralism, Counter-factualism, Reflection,
Introspection, Self-reference, methodism, particularism (obviously the list is
incomplete) are just some of the tools (formal languages/models - used for
communicating with other humans, not to be mistaken for ontologies) in my
toolbox. How and when I might use any particular instrument is context-
dependent and is largely up to me. It's purposeful and intentional.

The rest of the time my mind does whatever it does all by itself - I can't
tell you what the autopilot 'believes'.

And I am not here to be persuaded (by you or anybody) that your way is better
than my way - I can change my mind all by myself if you give me the relevant
information. That's how I use introspection/reflection.

~~~
ordu
_> You are imposing your language/vocabulary onto me, rather than adopting
mine, while failing to realise that language itself is just another
instrument. I use it for communication._

You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian
thinker.

 _> Bayesianism, Intuitioinism, counter-factualism, methodism, particularism
(obviously the list is incomlete) are just some of the tools in my toolbox.
How and when I might use any particular instrument is up to me._

No, there comes another question: how you might claim that Aumann's theorem is
applicable to you, if you are not a strictly bayesian? Maybe logic is also
just a one tool of many, and can be rejected when you feel like that? Have you
formal rules to judge when some or other tool might be used or rejected? If
so, do you believe in this rules to work?

All I want to show, that you cannot reason without some beliefs you take as
granted. So your claim that you have no beliefs is false.

~~~
ukj
>You mentioned Aumann's theorem, so it seemed for me that you are bayesian
thinker.

As with all things in Logic/Formal languages - the conclusions are true IF you
accept the axioms. The CHOICE to accept (or reject) the axioms (read: play the
game according its set of normative rules) is up to you. It's cooperative game
theory.

Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any
conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building - to this end,
I will happily abandon my language and adopt my interlocutors' (if they are
not comfortable doing so). If my interlocutors understand how 'the game' works
and are themselves comfortable using language
effectively/metaphorically/constructively/adaptively in real-time then there's
no need for compromise on my part.

It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game. You are trying to
'be right. That signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules
as me.

So if you dislike the word 'methods' and you would much prefer me to use the
word 'beliefs' when talking to you - I will happily do that (after I've made
my point).

>All I want to show, that you cannot reason without some beliefs you take as
granted. So your claim that you have no beliefs is false.

Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth
also...

    
    
      All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box 
    

Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by the
rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is on
you?

~~~
ordu
_> Aumann's theorem applies to me in as much as my goal in any
conversation/interaction is to optimise for consensus-building_

But Aumann's theorem is true for rationalists only. I checked wikipedia
artice, and seems that it is not just about bayesian rationality as I thought,
it is about any rationality. Why do you think, that you are rational agent?
All the psychology shows that people are irrational beings.

 _> It seems to me that you are playing a non-cooperative game._ _> That
signals to me that you aren't even playing by the same rules as me._

Maybe I am. Why should I? What could I gain from being cooperative in this
particular case? What could I gain from following your rules?

 _> You are trying to 'be right._

No, I'm trying to make a point. I'm not interested in the search for
consensus. I need no consensus. I made a point. You have a choice to
understand it or to not understand. You have a choice to agree or to disagree.
I'm interested in your understanding, but I'm not interested in your
agreement. Your disagreement is much more fun, it could be much more
educational for me. It is more educational for you also, though it is more
about your gain, then mine. An agreement is boring and useless.

 _> So if you dislike the word 'methods'_

No, it is misunderstanding. I'm trying to say, that methods are also beliefs,
or they based on beliefs.

 _> Then it's false. So what? You seem like you belong to the Church of Truth
also... > All models are wrong, but some are useful --George Box_

Of course all models are wrong, but some are useful. Moreover, our mind can
work only with models. Logic is one of such a models, it can simplify a lot of
cases by reducing them into true/false statements. Either you have beliefs or
you have not. Isn't it? Or your point that it is not so simple and dichotomy
cannot capture all relevant properties of the problem? Could you propose some
other model which we can use to speak about your beliefs that you take as
granted and do not question?

 _> Since you are the one making positive claims about 'my beliefs', then (by
the rules I am guessing you subscribe to, but I don't) the burden of proof is
on you?_

I cannot prove that, because to prove I need to find an example of your
belief. It is a hard work by itself and it is more so, because English is not
my native language. But I can give you tools to find your beliefs which you
had not questioned yet. Dig your methods, they are themselves based on
assumptions.

------
Rochus
If a field of knowledge is associated with a person or group of persons
("Frankfurter Schule", "Wiener Kreis"), I am a priori sceptical. Genuine
scientific knowledge exists for itself and does not require authority and
sectarian admiration. Philosophy can produce more useful things (e.g.
knowledge representation, ontologies) than subjective individual opinions.

~~~
tokai
So how do you feel about Newtonian physics or algorithms? All knowledge is
social.

~~~
Rochus
Expressing opinions does not create new, reliable scientific knowledge.
Instead scientists observe, make claims, deduce the effects of their claims,
and then conduct experiments suited to possibly observe these effects. So it's
not just claiming. And the laws of physics exist by themselves, even when
there is no human society to discover and know them.

It's a different story how knowledge is passed on or accepted by society.

We know that the proof of authority is the weakest and most unreliable type of
evidence. But still the proof of authority dominates in practical everyday
life. We believe things because our parents or teachers tell us, even if we
had the possibility to check them ourselves from a scientific point of view.
But parents and teachers are not the source of knowledge, they are only
transmitters.

In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the
situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable,
but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence.

~~~
claudiawerner
>In the humanities ("Geisteswissenschaften", and similar disciplines) the
situation is different. Knowledge is rather believable and not falsifiable,
but only accepted on the authority of the person who uttered the sentence.

I'm curious if you have any evidence that this is a general trend. Your
original comment is also wrong; the "Frankfurt School", one of your examples,
does not ascribe particular authority to its members by virtue of being part
of the "school"[1] - rather, it denotes a particular tradition, very similar
to the way we use the term "school" in music. A school of thought[0]
specifically denotes a commitment to a particular method or set of principles,
not a commitment to certain personages. Although a school may take after one
person, it's not _because_ of the person but because of the content of their
thought.

Besides, the Frankfurt School never claimed to be carrying out science. Other
schools were, for instance, committed to certain ideas of science. These
philosophical schools are ontologically prior to science.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_thought)

[1] Habermas is a "member" of the Frankfurt School of thought, yet he is
criticized by those inside and outside the school. This, at least, shows that
a school of thought is not a dogmatic adherence to a person or their ideas.

------
mmhsieh
No, but he was very much Lakatos-intolerant.

------
ukj
There may well be a method to “science” (whatever that is), or acquiring
knowledge in general.

Is just that we haven’t invented the ‘right’ language to describe the process
with.

Science is what we understand well enough to explain to a computer. Art is
everything else we do. —Donald Knuth

In as much as software development is theory-building and iterative
development is about hypothesis testing/experiment validation/reproduction -
it is scientific/empirical.

Beyond that ... We are forever stuck with theory, which is never a good enough
substitute for practice.

------
mxcrossb
That was a good read. I found this part:

> First of all the perceptual system cuts down this abundance or you couldn't
> survive." Religion, science, politics and philosophy represent our attempts
> to compress reality still further.

Very interesting to think about in the context of artificial intelligence.

------
ngcc_hk
You need an alternative view. He provided one. A good deal. Philosophy is
never about convenience.

The real question - is philosophy of science helped science or human. I am not
sure.

~~~
gmueckl
Philosophy of science is more helpful than people give it credit for. For
example, Ernst Mach basically laid a lot of groundwork for the General Theory
of Relativity with his philosophical work about the nature of physical
theories.

I have also personally had a couple of discussions with philosophers who
worked on understanding scientific simulation and trying to approach an
abstract, but accurate definition of its nature. Even just the attempt to do
that forced a lot of introspection onto the scientists they talked to about
their work. My takeaway was that these discussions uncovered a lot of implicit
assumptions that were unknowingly made. So even if the results the
philosophers wanted - a generic definition of what a scientific simulation is
- might not be very useful in themselves, the mere process of getting there
helped everybody develop a better understanding.

------
345218435
side note: feyerabend is a variation of the german word „feierabend“ which
consists of the two nouns „feier“ and „abend“, „party“ and „evening“
respectively. we use that word for „home time“ after the work day. i.e.
„feierabend! i’ll call it a day and go home“.

------
pjc50
> "I have no position!" he cried. "If you have a position, it is always
> something screwed down." He twisted an invisible screwdriver into the table.
> "I have opinions that I defend rather vigorously, and then I find out how
> silly they are, and I give them up!"

By modern social convention this is "trolling".

> If he was not anti-science, I asked, what did he mean by his statement in
> Who's Who that intellectuals are criminals? "I thought so for a long time,"
> Feyerabend said, "but last year I crossed it out, because there are lots of
> good intellectuals."

This was more or less the justification used in the Cultural Revolution or
"Year Zero" for murdering "intellectuals".

In the end he has a bunch of valid criticisms, but I suspect his overall
outlook is, like that of a lot of people, rooted in the trauma of his time. In
this case WW2, which was an extremely "scientific" war, containing both the
"race science" of the Nazis plus the development of weapons of mass
destruction and the use of scientific methods to maximise lethality.

~~~
vageli
> > "I have no position!" he cried. "If you have a position, it is always
> something screwed down." He twisted an invisible screwdriver into the table.
> "I have opinions that I defend rather vigorously, and then I find out how
> silly they are, and I give them up!"

> By modern social convention this is "trolling".

Can you expand on this? That hardly sounds like trolling and more like "Strong
opinions loosely held" which is an admirable intellectual stance to take in my
opinion.

~~~
mcguire
I like pjc50's answer, but here's an alternative take: it's a matter of
intention. Trolling involves making people angry because making them angry is
fun. It's not any kind of intellectual stance.

The alternative is a method of teaching or learning, where unpopular opinions
are as something between a counterfactual for exploration and the best way of
getting a question answered on the internet: by asserting a wrong answer.

"Strong opinions loosely held" requires the opinions to actually be loosely
held. You have to admit there are other options and you have to let go when
yours are shown to be silly.

On the other hand, keep in mind that intent is impossible to judge from the
outside.

------
iron0013
“Feyerabend, who defended astrology and creationism...” go ahead and stop
right there, that’s all anyone needs to know, frankly.

~~~
dang
" _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A
good critical comment teaches us something._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
lacker
Honestly I found this comment to be useful. Supporting astrology and
creationism is a pretty damning set of facts about someone.

~~~
dang
It's not a useful or interesting representation of Feyerabend.

The internet habit of reducing everything to its most sensational detail, and
cleansing it of all context, for damning purposes, is a bad one. It's what
that HN guideline is intended to cover.

~~~
QuesnayJr
There's a flipside, where certain writers get to be read with infinite
charity, while everyone else has to take their lumps. Feyerabend really did
make that argument -- it's right there in black-and-white in "Against Method".
But since he's an "important thinker", we have to read him with more care than
he wrote with.

"Against Method" is a fun book, and I enjoyed it when I read it back when the
stakes didn't seem so high. But he chose to write a fun book rather than a
serious one, and he can't complain when people take him seriously.

