SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:24:41 -0500
Reply-To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Subject:
From:
Anthony Waterman <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
In-Reply-To:
MIME-Version:
1.0
Comments:
To: Eric Schliesser <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
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 -----
>
>

ATOM RSS1 RSS2