No considero que anarquista sea el término, contradictorio en esto, dijo que el anarquismo era una mala idea en política (era claramente marxista-leninista) pero buena en ciencia, también igualó anarquismo a "todo vale" como suelen hacer los críticos del anarquismo. Más tarde se corrigió y estableció que el término dadaista era el apropiado.
It's all over the net. Apparently there's like a massive controversy going on. The Christians or the atheists, or someone got a hold of it and started a huge debate with it in the forums.
I'm trying to find a copy myself - but I think it's been taken off the shelf or something because I can’t find it.
If anyone could help me out it'd be much appreciated.
Don't forget mentally retarded. On the other hand, he's a wonderful role model for people who want to die without ever contributing anything meaningful or remotely useful to the world's knowledge.
I have never agreed, and to date, have not come across a cogent argument in favor of "scientists are a comunity of power". That is when deciding which theories are to pass as scienctifically usefull. Feyerabend only states his case without offering any good reason in support. The history of science proves him wrong.
"The history of science has meandered as it pleases" . The history of science proves you wrong also.
If Feyerabend was right in his superficial observations science would not be as succseful as it has been. Again, the history of science proves him wrong.
I am aware of what he says of Galileo. But Feyerabend seems only interested in the superficial not in the actual structure of theories. Thanks for you comment, I will study Feyerabend a bit more deeper.
Have you looked at the Blake-Feyerabend Hypothesis?
It examines and debunks the ideological structures inherent in mythological cure all approaches like verification, falsification, English empiricism, and shows, underneath this, that creativity and imagination are the real sources of human knowledge.
It uses Paul Feyerabend, and the radical Romantic poet William Blake, to reveal that the foundations of knowledge are essentially creative. - An Australian philosopher I believe.
I google 'Blake-Feyerabend' and all I get are Christians and Atheists debating over it, but I can't find a copy anywhere. - Is it a documentary, a book? If the later, who publishes it?
No considero que anarquista sea el término, contradictorio en esto, dijo que el anarquismo era una mala idea en política (era claramente marxista-leninista) pero buena en ciencia, también igualó anarquismo a "todo vale" como suelen hacer los críticos del anarquismo. Más tarde se corrigió y estableció que el término dadaista era el apropiado.
TomdeArgentina 2 months ago
"The Conquest of Abundance" is a great book.
scttzwdrff 7 months ago
That sounds interesting, that creativity is more important than knowledge...
Where could I find more on that Feyerabend-Blake hypothesis? Thanks.
Phavonic 1 year ago
@Phavonic
It's all over the net. Apparently there's like a massive controversy going on. The Christians or the atheists, or someone got a hold of it and started a huge debate with it in the forums.
I'm trying to find a copy myself - but I think it's been taken off the shelf or something because I can’t find it.
If anyone could help me out it'd be much appreciated.
ataraxia7557 1 year ago
@ataraxia7557
It's not taken off the shelf - and you can get a copy at lulu publishing. The author even has it as a free down load, I think.
CTY801CTY 1 year ago
@Phavonic Go check out Amazon or Lulu marketplace - it's just called 'The Blake-Feyerabend Hypothesis" and the guy who wrote it is 'Timb Hoswell'.
CTY801CTY 1 year ago
Feyerabend was a hack, a pseudo-intellectual crank, an enemy of science, reason and all human progress.
lxmoya11 1 year ago
@lxmoya11
Don't forget mentally retarded. On the other hand, he's a wonderful role model for people who want to die without ever contributing anything meaningful or remotely useful to the world's knowledge.
thrustfang 1 year ago
Feyerabend no creó el falsacionismo. Fue Karl Popper quién lo hizo.
ONaasso 2 years ago 15
Y dijo "pensamiento aséptico" en lugar de pensamiento escéptico.
Errores que deben corregirse chicas ;), pero igual me gusta, gracias por compartir esto.
badivillar 2 years ago
"Los científicos no pueden dar razones de su poder. lo que tienen en rigor es poder, y en virtud de que tienen poder dicen que tienen razón"
comunaburguesa 2 years ago 5
@comunaburguesa. Feyerabend tenía razón. Las ciencias teóricas son un fraude y han quedado sobradamente refutadas.
antonio80975 1 year ago
Excelente aportación, que se diga algo de la fes acatlán, yo estudió filosofía ahí.
diferentesmentes 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
A modern sophist. Not qualified to be called a philosopher.
DirzoRasec 3 years ago
the philosophy of sciences of Feyerabend is totally logic, nothing sophist and the scientists are a comunity of power
enocc 2 years ago 3
I have never agreed, and to date, have not come across a cogent argument in favor of "scientists are a comunity of power". That is when deciding which theories are to pass as scienctifically usefull. Feyerabend only states his case without offering any good reason in support. The history of science proves him wrong.
DirzoRasec 2 years ago
The history of science has meandered as it pleases.
kdwormy 2 years ago
"The history of science has meandered as it pleases" . The history of science proves you wrong also.
If Feyerabend was right in his superficial observations science would not be as succseful as it has been. Again, the history of science proves him wrong.
DirzoRasec 2 years ago
he history of science proves he was right, view the case of galileo and newton
enocc 2 years ago
I am aware of what he says of Galileo. But Feyerabend seems only interested in the superficial not in the actual structure of theories. Thanks for you comment, I will study Feyerabend a bit more deeper.
DirzoRasec 2 years ago
Totally agree. There is a hint of elitism in most scientific objectivity.
Phavonic 2 years ago
@Phavonic
Have you looked at the Blake-Feyerabend Hypothesis?
It examines and debunks the ideological structures inherent in mythological cure all approaches like verification, falsification, English empiricism, and shows, underneath this, that creativity and imagination are the real sources of human knowledge.
It uses Paul Feyerabend, and the radical Romantic poet William Blake, to reveal that the foundations of knowledge are essentially creative. - An Australian philosopher I believe.
CTY801CTY 1 year ago
@CTY801CTY Yeah and WHERE DO YOU GET IT FROM?
I google 'Blake-Feyerabend' and all I get are Christians and Atheists debating over it, but I can't find a copy anywhere. - Is it a documentary, a book? If the later, who publishes it?
ataraxia7557 1 year ago
Hay algunas cosas que están dichas textual de wikipedia...
pero fuera de eso, es un buen trabajo.
KendLetters 4 years ago
buena selección pra un poco más de cultura filosófica
yrihelena
barisigua 4 years ago
Muy bueno, las felicito a ver si hacen una productora asi sobrado....
danielfalco65 4 years ago
solo que no se escucha nada jaja
juanchomoreno 2 years ago
buen trabajo..
davidruncato 4 years ago