Subject: Re: PKF: .Expert vs. non-expert ......
Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:20:37 +0200


Quinns message comes to meet /Karins/ good issues in as they really are.
There are no distortions and no humbug in Quinns response and I am not
lookin to dish out compliments but am glad to see good reasoned responses
and somewhat retorative dialogue actually occuring. Thank God. The message
that came previous to it in response to the Karin Festers original was
really just simply too far out there to be useful.

AP
www.patterson.cz
----- Original Message -----
From: Quinn Rusnell <qrusnell-AT-home.com>
To: <feyerabend-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu>
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2001 9:52 AM
Subject: Re: PKF: .Expert vs. non-expert ......


> Karin Fester and Feyerabend list,
>
> I've been enjoying this discussion for almost one year now. I first ran
> accoss Feyerabend in an Intro Philosophy of Science course. I was drawn
to
> read more of his philosophy because he seemed very pragmatic, and like
the
> early American Pragmatists (Peirce most notibly here), he suggested
> methodological pluralism, not only in the science, but over the scope of
all
> academics. I have a background in logics (classical and non-classical),
but
> I was struck by the difficulty of providing a classical logical function
in
> biology. For example, unless you want to maintain a belief in
supernatural
> intervention, there is no reason to suppose that genetic modifications
tend
> toward "advantageous" expressions (whatever "advantageous" might mean to
> Evolution). But this is no different than the other sciences. For
example,
> simple physical laws flout the logical rule of monotonicity (given that A
> entails C, A and B entail C): An accurate pitcher might be able to throw
a
> ball against a mark, hitting the mark each time; but two accurate
pitchers,
> throwing balls at the same time, with the same velocity, against the same
> mark, will not hit the same mark--none of them will hit the mark because
the
> balls will bounce off one another just before the target (for this
reason,
> and others, I believe that items with volume cannot be members of logical
> functions). In Chemistry, combining a base with an acid produces a
different
> effect than just one of them alone, again flouting the law of
monotonicity.
> Without monotonicity, we allow for inconsistency in our methods (or, at
> least, paraconsistency). Up to this point, interpreted through the
filters
> of my own background, I agree with your methodological pluralism and
> anti-reductivism.
>
> However, I think you connect pluralism with anti-establishment,
> anti-authority, and anti-expert too quickly. By "expert" I think you mean
> "so called expert". Gadamer makes a good point concerning authority in
Truth
> and Method (Gadamer, by the way, sounds very much like a pluralist,
though
> he doesn't come out and say "I'm a pluralist"). The authority we should
talk
> about, in my opinion, is epistemic, not nominal as you seem to be talking
> about it. If we want to talk about authority, I don't think we should be
> talking about the kind given in name only. Unless it has the point to
judge
> whether or not the name is deserved. The point I understand you to be
making
> is that authority in the medical sciences is not deserved. You cite
horror
> stories of mis-diagnoses as evidence. I have some similar stories of my
own.
> But my bad experiences with doctors do not cause me to disrespect medical
> journals, only the doctors that don't keep up with them. There are some
bad
> physicians, but that does not seem like a good reason to disrespect the
> medical sciences. Further, I don't see how pluralism in the medical
sciences
> would automatically lead us to the alternatives you mentioned, such as
> homeopathy. And if they did, there are going to be bad homeopaths.
>
> I think that Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism would commit him to
the
> view that there is no basis for medical knowledge. But pluralism could
imply
> something else: each individual is free to embue authority on others.
This
> approach defers the epistemological question to psychology. I think that
> people earn my authority. I never walked into my classrooms and, to the
> disapproval of some, automatically gave my professor authority on the
> subject of the class. My professors had to earn my respect. Once they had
my
> respect, I could not help but think of them as experts in their subjects.
I
> think the same is true of physicians. After many bad physicians, I found
one
> who suffered from similar allergies as me, so I go to him for allergy
> problems. I found an ear specialist to treat my ear problems. I even
found
> my favorite emergency room. Doctors are like any other service or
product,
> you have to shop around to get the best deal for you.
>
> Quinn
> **********************************************************************
> 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


**********************************************************************
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