The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
And a 4 for mentioning Feyerabend!
kcurie should like this:
philosophy can neither succeed in providing a general description of science, nor in devising a method for differentiating products of science from non-scientific entities like myths
My first impression was that Popper was quite a positivist with the falsification method. On the other hand, if falsification is (or were) all that there is to the scientific method, than science indeed offers not so much, in a sense.
But Feyerabend goes too far as well with anarchistic or democratic views of science. Since most people don't even want to know basic scientific notions, it would be strange to let them decide what is science. Just as martial arts dans are not decided by popular vote, scientific standards deserve protection.
Of course, there are at least two sides of scientific research. For generation of new ideas indeed "anything goes" - if only you come up with a great idea, it does not matter whether you got it "methodologically". But then comes the work of testing ideas - and here we may discern a universal method in Popper's falsification. That method may not be complete - there might come new methodological framework, perhaps incorporating fully theories dealing with rare events, or differentiation between chaotic and systematic or cybernetic phenomena. But it is not "anything going" in the methodological evolution.
Universal distinctions of science and "non-science" may not be complete - Godel's incompleteness theorems are hiding somewhere behind (just as in Popper's falsificationism). But so what? Not only perfect knowledge, but perfect security or justice or government are not possible. Western philosophy is probably too much obsessed with universal rules and "fear" of exceptions to them. (Do we not see where insistence on perfect and most efficient markets and even democracies lead us to?) Scientific understanding and standards were evolving till now, and they will evolve in the future. Scientific revolutions will happen, but boy, you have to do a lot of work to make one. I doubt whether we need to be more efficient there.
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 24 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 19 19 comments
by Oui - Sep 13 35 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 11 5 comments
by Cat - Sep 13 9 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 2 2 comments
by Oui - Sep 28
by Oui - Sep 274 comments
by Oui - Sep 2612 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 242 comments
by Oui - Sep 1919 comments
by gmoke - Sep 173 comments
by Oui - Sep 153 comments
by Oui - Sep 15
by Oui - Sep 1411 comments
by Oui - Sep 1335 comments
by Cat - Sep 139 comments
by Oui - Sep 126 comments
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 115 comments
by Oui - Sep 929 comments
by Oui - Sep 713 comments
by Oui - Sep 61 comment
by Frank Schnittger - Sep 22 comments
by gmoke - Sep 2
by Oui - Sep 1190 comments
by Oui - Aug 315 comments