Talk:Paul Feyerabend

message: This article reads as if it was written by someone very sympathetic to Feyerabend's views ... his positions are repeatedly stated as facts. There is no critical response represented in the text and the Criticism section is ... empty!? -- 98.108.206.28 (talk) 23:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've expanded on Stove's criticism and added a "Criticism" section. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 23:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough to expand the criticism section, but it is now very long and not awfully instructive (despite being familiar with Feyerabend and Kuhn's writing, I can't really comprehend the point of the critique as articulated here: also, it refers to one out-of-print book by a deceased philosopher who doesn't appear to have achieved a great deal of professional subscription (he seemed to write mainly for the pop sci crowd). He doesn't seem (from Amazon reviews) to have well understood the material. Is that really the best we can do for a critique of Feyerabend? Given how radical his views are, are there really no more notable critiques? (Block, Fodor, Dennett, Dawkins, E O Wilson and so on) - scientific realists like this?). If not, then perhaps the article should be sympathetic to Feyerabend's views! ElectricRay (talk) 12:13, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: Just removed a whole section:
"Over time, his works came to be used as the basis for many literary deconstructionists, and some radical feminist writers, who claimed that science (and sometimes, even mathematics and logic itelf) were social constructions; in this view, science has no special claim to proving truth, and no more utility than any other way of thinking about the world.
More recently Feyerabend took umbrage at this misunderstanding and mis-use of his work: "How can an enterprise {science} depend on culture in so many ways, and yet produce such solid results? ....Movements that view quantum mechanics as a turning-point in thought - and that includes fly-by-night mystics, prophets of a New Age, and relativists of all sorts - get aroused by the cultural component and forget predictions and technology." (Source: Paul Feyerabend. Atoms and Consciousness', in Common Knowledge Vol. 1, No. 1 1992: 28-32)"
The interpretation of what PKF says here is itself a misunderstanding.  Between 1960 somthing and 1992 all PKF literature points to a Feyerabend who does not believe that science has any special claim to proving truth.  After 1992, he still appears to be the essentially the same 'anything goes' philosopher he was in the 60's.
The small snippet from common knowledge is all anyone has been able to get their hands on (at least in this forum).  My interpretation is that he is clarifying a point on culture.  That science, and its results, are not purely social constructs.  I can't believe that he radically altered his philosophy in the way described for the duration of one article. ---Chris
:I am unsure that this should have been removed. It involves an important topic area that I believe the article is missing substantial information on as well as a direct quotation. Perhaps it could be worded differently, with reference to his attitude over time being removed. I don't believe that there should be a dichotomy created or perpetuated that contrasts 'anything goes' philosophers with those who are not 'anything goes' philosophers, however, and I don't see that argument as a particularly rational basis for your decision to remove this segment. I would suggest that it be added again reworded, but without any implication of a particular modification of his philosophy over time which seems to only be speculated (?please disprove me?). On second reading, the quote should probably remain removed due to its somewhat misleading appearance. Flying Hamster 09:15, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Common Knowledge excerpt

message: I think the link to John Kadvaney's website should be either deleted or moved to Imre Lakatos.  It has very little to do with Feyerabend, and I could find no mention of a 'Trojan Horse', while there is plenty of extraneous information about Kadvaney's other research.  Perhaps a link to one of the more specific subpages on that website is appropriate, but I couldn't find anything but the Feyerabend memorial that was really relevant.--ragesoss 23:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Feyerabend's 'Trojan Horse' link mostly unrelated to Feyerabend

message: "They planned to write a dialogue volume, to be titled For and Against Method, in which Lakatos would defend a rationalist view of science and Feyerabend would attack it."
I changed this sentence.  They did plan on writing a book on this topic, but For and Against Method isn't what it was to be titled (at least, I've seen no indication that this was to be its title).  For and Against Method is the name of a book that was edited by Matteo Motterlini and included correspondence between Feyerabend and Lakatos and some other writings by Lakatos. --Deckard05 16:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For and Against Method 

message: This is a wonderful entry, and was very helpful to me. Kudos to those involved in it!
:Agreed! (keep it up!)--Heyitspeter 22:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  great work 

message: I removed the following sentence: "Feyerabend extended well beyond Thomas Kuhn in his criticism and skepticism about the rationality of science."  It's too simple of a statement to accurately describe Feyerabend's position.  Feyerabend stated that Lakatos's model of science should replace Kuhn's (see "Consolations for the Specialist").  Given that many people consider Lakatos's model more rational than Kuhn's, I'm not sure if the sentence that I deleted is appropriate.  On the other hand, in the same essay Feyerabend defends Kuhn against Lakatos, saying that "science is more irrational than Lakatos ... is prepared to admit."  But he goes on to say that this doesn't mean he has changed his mind, it only means that he recognizes that science is much more complex than most people are willing to admit.  If anything, Feyerabend isn't skeptical of science, he is skeptical of philosophy of science.  He doesn't like it when philosophers of science try to box science in with rules that just don't fit how science actually works. Deckard05 22:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  --The Hanged Man 23:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuhn and Beyond 

message: Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend has applied a wikipedia-friendly copyright to a few images she took. A couple of them are now in the article. Ther other two are here:
 
-- Chris 23:45, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New PKF images 

message: Most of the English language sources on the Internet propagate the information, that Paul Feyerabend died at his home in Zurich. However, in :de:Paul Feyerabend and in other sources we can read that he died in Genolier near Geneve. --Emil Petkov 15:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Feyerabend's philosophy By Eric Oberheim Walter de Gruyter, 2006 - 321 pages ISBN: 978-3-11-018907-0 p.23 , Feyerabend died in a hospital in Genolier. Jarash (talk) 09:49, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place of death 

message: Feyerabend's thesis of counterinduction is barely mentioned in this article although it has been important in modern physics.  In Chapters 6 and 7 of his Against Method Feyerabend illustrated the idea in his brilliant examination of Galileo’s defense of the heliocentric theory, showing how Galileo practiced counterindiction as a “detecting device” (p. 77) to create his own observation language. (p. 79) Unfortunately Feyerabend failed to recognize Heisenberg’s practice of counterinduction in quantum theory. Feyerabend relied on Bohr’s writings, seldom referencing Heisenberg, and it is unlikely that he had an appreciation for the differences between Heisenberg and Bohr's philosophies of quantum theory.
	In the chapter titled "Quantum Mechanics and a Talk with Einstein (1925-1926)" in his Physics and Beyond Heisenberg relates that Einstein told him he was no longer a positivist, because it is the physical theory that describes what the physicist can observe.  This idea is later echoed as Feyerabend’s “Thesis I”.  
	In the chapter titled "Fresh Fields (1926-1927)" Heisenberg remembered this conversation with Einstein the previous year and recognized that it was the classical theory that led him to think that the tracks in the Wilson cloud chamber represent the movement of a particle as having a definite position and velocity that defined its trajectory.  He then asked: Can the quantum mechanics represent the fact that an electron finds itself approximately in a given place and that it moves approximately at a given velocity?  In answer to this new question he found that these approximations could be represented mathematically by his “uncertainty relations.”  Thus did Heisenberg practice counterinduction.
        I have listed my History of Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science in the external links, because I allocate a chapter - BOOK VI - to discussion of Feyerabend including the topic of counterinduction. 66.240.59.231 (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Counterinduction 

message: I removed this sentence:
"Thus Feyerabend proposes that science might proceed best not by induction, but by counterinduction."
Feyerabend quite explicitly denies this in Against Method.  In Chapter 2 he writes,
"One might therefore get the impression that I recommend a new methodology which replaces induction by counterinduction and uses a multiplicity of theories, metaphysical views, fairy-tales instead of the customary pair theory/observation.  This impression would certainly be mistaken."
Feyerabend's argument in Against Method is that "all methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits."  He used the concept of counterinduction in his argument in order to show that even induction (which many have regarded as a "basic" method of science) has its limits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deckard05 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on counterinduction 

message: Could we have a comment on why the Galileo affair quote was removed? I'm referring to the text below:
:Feyerabend commented on the Galileo affair as follows:
:"The church at the time of Galileo was much more faithful to reason than Galileo himself, and also took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo's doctrine. Its verdict against Galileo was rational and just, and revisionism can be legitimized solely for motives of political opportunism."[1][2][3]
If that text is removed, then so, I imagine should the paragraph following which refers to "these remarks",
:Together these remarks sanction the introduction...
I've reverted the edit for now.
--ChrisSteinbach (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galileo affair 

message: There's currently a "citation needed" mark for F's comments on the separation of state and science. I know of two such citations, both in Against Method, third edition: p.viii (Preface) and p.160 (Appendix I). I leave it to a more competent editor to actually make the change on the main page, however. --TFBW 220.244.86.15 (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Role of science in society 

message: Can someone delete the David Stove criticism. David Stove does not matter, he's a pseudo-philosopher and his criticism should not make it to the article for otherwise you might as well put a criticism by Britney Spears.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.49.31 (talk) 18:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's some years since I read Stove's 'four modern irrationalists' so I thought I should glance over it again before replying. The online version is now only available via the we archive. Here's the link. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I've not deleted the criticism, but I have expanded on it to such and extent that readers should be able to make up their own mind about Stove's criticism. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 23:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Stove? 

message: It would be useful to have the IPA transcription of his name in the introduction. I would add it myself, but I don't know how his name was pronounced. --N-k (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA for name 

message: According to Feyerabend's philosophy By Eric Oberheim Walter de Gruyter, 2006 - 321 pages ISBN: 978-3-11-018907-0 p.19, Feyerabend developed a doctoral thesis under the supervision of Victor Kraft. Jarash (talk) 19:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific supervisor 

message: The title 'Farewell to Reason' is linked back to this article. I think that such circular links do not make sense. -- A guest from abroad. ;-) --92.231.49.43 (talk) 13:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Circular stuff 

message: I'm interested in this more or less casually stated line from the section on philosophy of mind: "Even though Feyerabend himself seems to have given it up in the late 1970s...".  The paragraph does not elaborate any further.  Frankly, after reading this article up to that point, I found it interesting that Feyerabend espoused something like eliminative materialism, so I'd be interested to know more about him giving it up. Mbarbier (talk) 13:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retraction of eliminative materialism? 

message: I'd just like to note that very little is said about Feyerabend in the philosophy of science article. I won't have time to add more substance for a while, so I mention it here in the hope that someone else will. --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophy of science article 

message: http://www.zeww.uni-hannover.de/113_Oberheim&Hoyningen_FEP.pdf 
It is a review of John Preston's book on Feyerabend that was mentioned above. It gives account of some of the ideas of the book. Not much, but all I could get so far.
94.66.187.76 (talk) 04:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: seems like a good source!

message: One of the main witnesses to the (apparently) true location and destruction of the famous Amber Room was one Paul Feyerabend.  Does anyone know if this witness and the subject of this article are one and the same man?  Was he managing a bar in the basement of the castle in 1945, whilst nursing his injury? Reference here:  --jrl 10:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Amber Room in Konigsberg 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Paul Feyerabend. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://galileo.fcien.edu.uy/de_la_paradoja_en_el__todo_vale.html
*Added archive https://archive.is/20070217063945/http://hosting.udlap.mx/profesores/miguela.mendez/alephzero/archivo/historico/az43/rocca43.html to http://hosting.udlap.mx/profesores/miguela.mendez/alephzero/archivo/historico/az43/rocca43.html
*Added  tag to http://www.dur.ac.uk/i.j.kidd/abundance_files/CooperCOA.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The kind of anarchism that Feyerabend proposes is not the same as the political theory of anarchism, and thus having it listed as "part of a series on anarchism" seems somewhat misleading. Feyerabend writes that "The following essay is written in the conviction that anarchism, while perhaps not the most attractive political philosophy, is certainly excellent medicine for epistemology, and for the philosophy of science", and while I understand the grouping of non-political anarchisms under this category, it seems like a miscategorization that could be potentially misleading to a casual reader with regard to Feyeraband's politics and philosophy.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemlock Pharmacist (talk • contribs) 17:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anarchism?