Conversation

TLDR of anarchist (Feyerabend) philosophy of science as opposed to “scientific method”. If you think of science as a method, you’re more likely to build a bureaucracy of science than do science. Science is peculiarly vulnerable to turpentine effects.
Replying to
I am utterly unpersuaded that there is any sense in which a “turpentine effect,” if it even exists, is a bad thing in regard to any scientific field. eg, building LIGO is as much a scientific achievement as any analysis of its results
2
Replying to
Ah I see your confusion. LIGO is great, it’s an instrument for measuring gravity. It’s instuments for measuring the ‘scientific method’ itself (eg journal impact factors, citations...) that I see as turpentine effects. The bureaucracy of institutional science.
1
Show replies
Replying to
A great philosophy professor I had framed Feyerabend as the most scientific realist philosopher of the century bc he had confidence that reality would reveal itself when human methods were cleared away. Interesting counter to people who see Feyerabend as a nihilist.
3
Replying to
“The only chemistry painters need is fat over lean and don’t ash your joint in the turpentine.” — Maceij Ceglowoski, responding to pg’s Hackers & Painters