Any Feyerabend fans around these parts? I never really see philosophy

>>7473802

>separating science and school

I don't think you'd like what the end-result of that would be.

>>7473838
no no, it's fine, school is worthless anyway. we may as well see how deep it can go.

>>7473842

>school is worthless anyway

Uhhhh, are you trying to say that modern education systems are broken? Because the concept of teaching our youth is not worthless at all, just the modern systems at work

>>7473838
>>7473842
>>7473851

Wow it only took like 5 minutes for this thread to be completely derailed. I guess no one here reads philosophy of science.

>>7473853

It's no one's fault but the OP's that he posted a picture more interesting than his post.

>>7473851
nope, school is literally worthless even in its ideal form. the education of the masses is a faulty path and has served to strengthen classes and all those entail.

>>7473874

That's quite an assertion, do you have any evidence to back up that claim?

>>7473862
If you're interested in the quote in the picture you should check out some of Feyerabend's work - it's very readable, not nearly as ponderous as most phil science. Three dialogues on knowledge, or his main work, Against Method.

Sorry this thread just seems to be a magnet for reddit-tier riffraff. I'll go back into my hole now.

>>7473885

The qoute actually turns me off quite a bit, he doesn't really understand the point of science, or of mass-education really.

I actually study epistemology of the sciences (well, I apply it to the social sciences, don't h8) and focus a lot on Kuhn/any work on epistemes. Pretty heavy on Foucault lately.

Never read much Feyerabend for some reason, even though, from what I do know about him, I tend really heavily toward his camp. Anything you can recommend OP? I mean aside from the obvious major shit like Against Method.

>>7473879
just look up "models of contemporary education" by mary jane shuker. pretty concise evidence of what i'm talking about.

>>7473892
It's possible you're misinterpreting due to a lack of context.

>>7473903
Which of Foucaults work applies to the philosophy of science?

As a practicing scientist Kuhn actually changed the way I approach what I do and was eminently readable.

>>7473918
Foucault tackles educational and scientific "institutions" that purport to be objectively truthful a lot. His discourse analysis is more focused on power structures and junk, but I mostly like his epistemic relativism and constructivism.

Kuhn was similar for me, and yeah in a lot plainer fucking English. But he's really relativist too, similar to Feyerabend. If you like those two, you would probably benefit from skimming secondary materials on Foucault's early work. Maybe just the SEP. Here's a thing:
http://faculty.georgetown.edu/irvinem/CCTP748/Foucault-Outline.html

Bachelard too, who inspired all of these guys. The original anti-Popper/anti-"steady progress" guy.

>>7473948
Awesome. I've enjoyed my Foucault so far (Discipline and Punish and the Birth of Biopolitics) but the Archaeology of Knowledge was much further down the list; I will bump it up.

I should probably actually read popper before jumping to the background reading. I made thirty pages in to logic of scientific discovery but it was just oddly grating...

>>7473903
>
For and Against Method is a really cool book. It's got some excellent lectures from Lakatos summing up logical positivism in a concise way, then some wacky stuff from Feyerabend, and all the correspondence between them. Very illuminating of post-Popper stuff.

Feyerabend's autobiography "Killing Time" is also quite fun, with pithy tidbits here and there. The Tyranny of Science is also just great. That's probably his most accessible book.

What early Foucault in particular? I've always found him unnecessarily dense and overrated, but I have only read his later stuff, and none of if successfully.

>>7473948

Oh cool outline, thanks!

>>7473948
very nice thing
I haven't read any Feyerabend but I've been meaning to.

Has anyone read Husserl's The Crisis of European Sciences?

>>7473802

I used to be a Feyerabendian, but then I took a 'On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme' to the knee.

Yeah, I had a suspicion before reading Feyerabend that he was really just a positivist in disguise. My fears were confirmed reading the 3rd edition of Against Method, where he basically says in a footnote 'I don't like my ideas anymore because Postmodernism took them too far!'

>>7474224
That's on my winter reading list, just checked it out from the library. Interesting that you ask about it. What about it?

>>7474309
I'm curious about how closely it touches on things like how our inescapably subjective perspective affects the possibility of finishing the scientific project or even satisfying any goals of objective modelling of the world.
I've been reading some Thomas Nagel and I want to find more stuff about epistemological issues related to his work on phenomenological consciousness.

File: Paul_Feyerabend-SHIGGYDIGGY.jpg (28KB, 525x584px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 525x584px

>>7473973
>Archaeology of Knowledge
Not that guy, but I made a mistake of reading Archaeology of Knowledge before The Order of Things, and I was completely lost on what it was eve about. So I really recommend you to read that before it.

>>7473802
On the topic of Feyerabend, I've read both Against Method and Science as Art and liked them both, and I do agree with him on pretty much anything. But I still can't accept "pseudo-sciences" like horoscope or alternative medicine, I think it's because I feel it's mostly just abusing naivete of some to earn quick money.
It might be, because I was once Marxist, and materialism kind of stayed with me...

>>7473892
Why would the quote turn you off? He is referring to the then increasing militaristic doctrine of scientific advancement.

The point of science is advancing human knowledge by pushing at the edges of understanding. He didn't state anything particularly controversial...

>>7474462
Interesting, I also read Archaeology of Knowledge first, didn't have any idea what the hell was going on.

And I don't think Feyerabend is ever actually arguing in favor of things like divination and astrology. For him there really is no such thing as "science" per se, rather there is a chaotic concatenation of various lines of inquiry, expressing a broad range of ontological and epistemological premises in action. His problem is when we try to have this one thing, Science, which stands over and above every other field of discourse. For Feyerabend, that's a myth, and he uses these so-called pseudo-sciences to point out the fact that there is literally no difference between them and so-called legitimate sciences. This pisses a lot of people off. It's a rhetorical tool more than anything else.

Plus Feyerabend viewed contemporary science as something abusing the naivete of the layman - massive multi-billion dollar particle colliders were one of his favorite targets. No one understands what actually goes on there, and the technological or otherwise payoff is totally nebulous. But we have well-educated guys in white coats telling us we should do this, and because of the theological clout of contemporary physics, we bow down and pay up.

>>7474524
I don't know, I had the feeling that he was for all types of explanations of reality, including divination and astrology, at least that's what I've got from skimming through Science for Free People, which I admittedly never read, because I felt I'll disagree with him, and didn't want to spoil the "taste" or whatever. But maybe I just misunderstood his points.

>>7474548
I think you are right, but I just always saw it within the context of Feyerabend trying to relativize science our only access to Truth or Reality. So he definitely thought contemporary cosmology should be taught in schools on equal footing with other mythological cosmologies, leaving it up to people to choose what they find most compelling.

So I suppose what I'm saying is that Feyerabend is bringing science down to the same level of discourse as everything else. What you're saying is that he's bringing pseudo-sciences up to the same level as science. It's really the same thing I suppose.

He's very well-educated in the history of science, and does this in a lucid and thought-out manner. Like Kuhn he exhorts us to think of science historically.

>>7474571
>He's very well-educated in the history of science, and does this in a lucid and thought-out manner.
Yes this is what I like him, and Khun and Foucault, they're all really good in presenting history of things, like science or whatever in a very lucid way that is (at least for me) easy to read.

>>7474524
>No one understands what actually goes on there
What are you trying to say? Those who build the detectors definitely know what they want to measure and what they can measure whereas the theorists want to test and improve existing models. For every experiment the possibility that the results can't be explained at the time exists. Theorists then consider themselves lucky that they actually have meaningful work to do instead of calculating higher-order diagrams to match the accuracy of the experiment.

>>7474685
For sure the scientists involved understand, Feyerabend's issue is that it's all being bankrolled by public money that's coming to the scientists via politicians who are entirely scientifically illiterate, from a populace that is quite possibly even less scientifically literate than the politicians. It's just kind of a mismatch of motivations. Given the finite resources of the government why does the public put up with this stuff? What benefit does it glean?

Feyerabend's answer is that the reason things like this are allowed is because science is becoming more and more a totalizing theological discourse in the public sphere. And as an ex-nazi, in his mind this isn't a good thing.

>>7474224
Husserl was major for me - ever read Heidegger on similar notes?

I know a guy who would blast this thread with anti-scientism recommendations, a lot of which would get really esoteric, or start flying off into anarcho-primitivism, etc. I'm finding more and more that there's a lot of stuff out there if you dig for it.

>>7474169
Sounds great, thanks for the recommendations.

>What early Foucault in particular?
As >>7474462 said, Foucault really needs to be read sequentially for a bunch of reasons.

Not only does he just get more rarefied and weird the later you go, with his early stuff being (practically) perfectly accessible, it's also just plain easier to understand his thought as it developed chronologically. Clinic, Madness, Discipline, and Archaeology are probably the best. Sexuality I could take or leave, personally. Fuck biopolitics imho.

>>7474849
>>7474685
I think the misunderstanding is coming from an assumption that only extreme positions can exist here. It's just a good thing to be mindful of the fact that Science is not a capital-S "Thing" that "should" guide society because it has some fruity nebula of vulgar, reborn capital-P "Progress" at the center. It's an old, dead, shitty idea repackaged for massified man. The fact that it gives careers to retard frauds like Lawrence Krauss should make you suspicious t bh fa m.

>>7475860

If you haven't read Fearless Speech you should check that out holmes.

>>7473802
>nonsense
Lazy thought-processes.
>>7473838
Science is terrible and only breeds positivists and other morons. They're pure balls of dogma and stupidity.

>>7475860
I wish I was that guy

and no I haven't read any heidegger yet but right now it feels like it's just a matter of time, these kind of thoughts are important to me
got any specific texts for me?

bumping good thread