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.https://www.ribbonfarm.com/2010/03/18/the-turpentine-effect/ …
-
-
Replying to @vgr
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 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Building a bureaucracy otoh is very much *not* doing science. it may or may not be valuable, but it’s nothing to do with turpentine
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Even Picasso, I am under the impression, thought talking about turpentine was *more* useful than talking about “Form” and “Meaning”
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @croald
Yes that’s the starting point of my post which I linked. Never mind. We’re talking past each other.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @vgr
when you say fields are “vulnerable” to turpentine effects, that’s a strong implication that it’s a bad thing. is that not what you mean?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Yes and it builds on conclusion in my post on how that happens, Picasso notwithstanding, in the form of science bureaucracy. Those who can’t do the science move to working on management tools for it.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.