'For the person or persons that hold dominion, can no more combine with the keeping up of majesty the running with harlots drunk or naked about the streets, or the performances of a stage player, or the open violation or contempt of laws passed by themselves than they can combine existence with non-existence'.

- Benedict de Spinoza. Political Treatise. 1677.




Friday, May 15, 2009

Feyerabend: against method 18

‘Thus science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted without ever having examined its advantages and its limits. And as the accepting and rejecting of ideologies should be left to the individual it follows that the separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution. Such a separation may be our only chance to achieve a humanity we are capable of, but have never fully realised’

I will consider each of the propositions advanced in the above

firstly -

it is not that science is closer to myth than scientific philosophy is prepared to admit

science is myth – and here I am defining myth as any story about how the world functions

any such story is an attempt at knowledge

the unknown reality that we face is open to all comers – and it does not discriminate for or against

those who hold to the scientific philosophy do not believe that science is myth or close to it

in fact they regard science as a form of objective knowledge – that tests theories against a known reality that has characteristics and features – quite independent of any theoretical characterization

in this account is the assumption that reality has features which are objective and which are known

this assumption – cannot be tested in any objective manner

but it is the assumption on which – empirical testing is based

this assumption of an objective reality – in my view is no more than a pragmatic action

and an action that establishes a platform for activity and behaviour

and as such it is in essence no different to the kind of non-empirical platforms that have been advanced by religious thinkers

that is to say it is just a way of seeing – defining the world – in order for us to get on with the business of acting and operating in it – with some semblance of order and purpose

as to empirical testing –

now indeed you can set up a situation – create a state of affairs – and see what happens

all action is objective – but independent of perspective and interpretation – it is unknown

we interpret what happens in terms of our perspectives and theories –

if something occurs that was not expected –

then we do indeed face objective reality – the unknown

in practise we can either accept this reality – or go on to develop a point of view which covers it

that is develop a theory in which the unknown event is given a character and function

I am not at all convinced that covering the world with myth – hunting done every unknown is the way to go

it is not something that from a logical point of view can be achieved – there is no complete knowledge

therefore I think such is an undesirable and unrealistic endeavour

the unknown is what grounds us – it is our connection with the real world

best I think to stay connected

secondly –

it is the case that science is one of many forms of thought and it is not necessarily the best

the reason that ‘it is not necessarily the best’ is because there is no ‘best’ for it to 'not necessarily' be

for there to be a ‘best’ form of thought – there would have to be an objective standard – against which all forms could be judged

Plato was all for this idea –

and objectivists and authoritarians ever since – right down to Feyerabend – have argued for it –

some more openly than others

Plato might have been a prick – but he didn’t pretend otherwise

the logical point here is that forms of thought exist and have currency and position within cultures when they are regarded as useful

Feyerabend should know this now that he is a born again anthropologist

and as to how important and significant science is regarded in any society or culture – that is an empirical question

thirdly –

science as conspicuous noisy and impudent – and superior only to those who have accepted it without examination?

you can of course interpret any action in terms of science – or in terms of any of the sciences

but this is just to say conspicuousness is in the eye of the be holder

there are religious people who see God everywhere – and there are schizophrenics who report the same

as for noisy – well all I can say is move to the country

as for impudent – if by this Feyerabend means shameless and insolent – I think he has a point

this objective rubbish about the pursuit of knowledge – has lead some to think that whatever they do – whatever their research – it’s all good – regardless of the consequences

such thinking and such practise – such science - is sociopathetic

as for those who have decided in favour of the scientific outlook – they have every right to do so

choices must be made – and the idea of a world view – faulty as it is – holds an attraction

science can be this or less than this –

it is not for Feyerabend or anyone else to legislate how anyone should think

you can say of course the scientific outlook is a blinkered view of reality – I would say there is no other kind

we all operate with blinkers –

and most with different sets of blinkers

anyone who uses just one set of blinkers – well that’s their business

I recommend a draw full – trunk even

to say that some adopt science without understanding its advantages and limits –

this might be true – but it can also be true of anyone in any practise

no-one I would suggest is fully aware of all the advantages and limits of anything that they do

fourthly –

the separation of science and state – catchy phrase – rings a bell

as far as I know there are no scientific institutes operating as political governments

whereas the same is not true in relation to religious institutions –

i.e. in Iran the government is run by Ayatollas – there is no comparable situation with respect to science nor has there ever been

I do indeed favour the separation of church and state –

however I can understand those like the Tibetan Buddhists who do not regard this as desirable – and would prefer to live under a theocracy

I think people should be able to live how they want to

in Western society there is a relation between governments and science

governments use science - science uses governments

who would have thought?

working up this argument about a non-existent identity – the identity of the state with science – is just the creation of an illusion –

there are illusions and there are illusions - this one is of the latter kind

finally –

what is humanity capable of that it has not fully realized?

Feyerabend’s argument here is very spurious

for one the science-state argument – is a straw man

secondly the idea that humanity is striving toward fulfillment is bullshit

what humanity is capable of – is what human beings do


© greg t. charlton. 2009.



To the memory of Prof. Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994)
A great philosopher a great spirit