A good definition of science is: keeping bureaucratic epistemology in check. We’re an unchecked proceduralist species. Without rules about how to make rules we tend to get on runaway rule-making binges and choking ourselves to death.
The opposite of “scientist” is “lawyer”
Conversation
Replying to
Where “lawyer” can be loosely construed as any profession dedicated to upholding systems of rules, whether theological, monarchical, constitutional, or ideological in origin. There may be lip service to the phenomenology the rules are “about” but internal consistency is central
1
4
15
“Doing science” is developing and exercising judgment about rules.
Do the rules extend beyond the justifiable? Do they not formalize enough of what is justifiable? Does it apply here? Should it be broken there?
Corner cases make bad law, but they make for good science.
1
5
12
Replying to
I haven't read it, but this sounds reminiscent of Paul Feyerabend's "Against Method" en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_M
1
2


