Dear Rob,
Thank you for your answer. I think that to say that Feyerabend claimed
that 'science benefits from political interference, and from dishonesty,
and is on a par with myth' is to misrepresent F's purpose in AM. Perhaps
we can find passages here and there that are consistent with that
interpretation (though I have just spent half an hour with my own copy
of AM and haven't found them). But it seems to me that what F is trying
to tell us is that we can't lay down in advance any hard and fast
procedures for deciding whether 'knowledge' has been obtained in some
particular case; that in fact scientists don't work that way; that much
history of science has indeed been myth, and myth with an ideological
axe to grind, such as the notorious Galileo vs Church episode; that we
can occasionally find examples of political interference in the
scientific enterprise which has had benign effects; and perhaps most
importantly, that human intellectual activity is larger and more
comprehensive than any disciplinary specialization can contain -- that
what we call 'science', 'religion', 'art', 'politics', 'philosophy',
'magic' etc. may be convenient abstractions for some local purposes, but
must never be taken too seriously. For to lock ourselves up in any of
these may be to stultify thought.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony
On 21/10/2011 2:57 AM, Rob Tye wrote:
> Dear Anthony
>
> I can imagine even crueller suggestions, for instance, that I should reread
> Farewell to Reason (London, 1987). But joking aside, how do you feel I am
> misrepresenting Feyerabend? The sort of passages in AM that seem to me to
> corroborate my comment are easy enough to find, I will cite them if you wish.
>
> Rob Tye
>
> _____________________________________________
>
> Original Message-----
>
> From: Anthony Waterman:,Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:03:03
> To: [log in to unmask]>
> Re: [SHOE] "Inside Job" and code of ethics for economists
>
> I would suggest that Rob Tye reread Feyerabend's Against Method (London, 1975).
>
> Anthony Waterman -----
>
>
|
