Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 13:35:20 -0500 (EST)
Subject: PKF: phil of sci


hi everyone,

i've been 'listening in' on some of the discussion going on in this group
for a while now, and suppose that i have something to contribute -- or
rather, hope to hear some replies and further contributions from other
members of this group.

feyerabend claimed that the sciences are 'a complex medium containing
surprising and unforeseen developments demanding complex procedures and
defies analysis on the basis of rules which have been set up in advance
and without regard to the ever-changing conditions of history.'

as far as i know, this is about as succinct as feyerabend got in his
criticism of 'rationalists', and as far as it goes, i think he is correct.
i imagine that part of feyerabend's dislike for philosophy of science in
general is that he thought it impossible to say anything beyond relatively
trivial and obvious things about progress in the sciences.  the history,
procedures, technologies, culture etc of science are too complex to get
beyond diffuse comments that are actually very obvious and known to all.
if you transgress the trivialities and commit yourself to a 'vision' of
scientific progress or rationality, those procedures, technologies,
history etc of the sciences will quickly contradict you.

if this sort of argument is correct, then in order for philosophy of
science to make some kind of interesting contribution to our intellectual
culture, it ought to study all those procedures, technologies, history
etc.  but i don't know if there are many philosophers doing this.  as far
as i know, no one is really considering, for example, the contributions
made by applied science or of Big Science to scientific progress (ian
hacking has done some nice work, however, and some sociologists of
scientific knowledge might be doing this too -- though i suspect there
are other problems with their program.)

anyway, i haven't really asked a question which needs answering.  but i
wonder, in general, what others might think of how i've characterised the
matter.  in particular, what do students and professors studying the
philosophy of science think about it?

thanks,
scott.

**********************************************************************
Contributions: mailto:feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Commands: mailto:majordomo-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Requests: mailto:feyerabend-approval-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu