>Casually destroys your scientific method

>>16690894 (OP)
Philosophy is gay. Are you a fag? Only fags read philosophy.

>>16690897
A scientist that isn't also a philosopher is a fucking retard

>no meaningful information conveyed
Guess we'll just have to settle for "He's not wrong. He isn't right, either."
Did you actually read the book?

>>16690900
>Richard Dawkins
>Stephen Hawking

>>16690931
>read a few blurbs from dawkins
>philosophy readily apparent
Did you think he meant "active practitioner in the specific discipline known as philosophy?"
Also, Hawking was a literal retard. Disabled science man gets replaced by black science man and you still don't catch on.

>>16690933
yknow he's literally saying that philosophy's dead and science is to replace it

>>16690933
>>16690934
hawking, I mean. But what's wrong with being retarded? He's still clearly a respected scientist

>>16690934
They're just Newton/Einstein groupies who have never contributed anything fundamental to human knowledge they suck

>>16690894 (OP)
feyerabend is still a gay interpretation just less gay than popper

>>16690900
>Lies jewmanities students tell themselves.

>>16691000
>thinks people that don't think say
To be fair, it's the retardation that causes the inability to use philosophy properly. That said, you should investigate what an "unknown known" is.
>English is gendered

>>16691000
>just apply the method bro it's always gonna work bro science is an industry

>>16691113
>just apply hegel's dialectic bro

summary?

>>16690900
gigabased

we broke out of baby science for engineers and got into modern science cuz of philosophy

>>16690900
You are a fucking lab technician not a gigabrain savant motherfucker. No one wants to hear your philosophy, which ought to be no more than checking ideas with experiments and observations, rather than trusting tales.

>>16690894 (OP)
I have love this writings when I was younger.

Yet, I have to remind OP:
Both the theory of science as well as the history of science has made some progresses. There is a chance some of his arguments doesn't hold today.

The book has orginally developed as a piee of a two part work. Lakatos was supposed to write the answering part. Unfortunately, he died before.

Whised I could go back to that part of my live, when I was younger, more idealistic and want to change the system.

>>16690894 (OP)
>Feyerabend provides numerous criticisms of scientific education in his time. He claims that the primary role of education was to stunt individual creativity by forcing them to accept and research on topics that students did not choose for themselves. He also claims that education is responsible for what he calls "intellectual pollution" where "illiterate and incompetent books flood the market, empty verbiage full of strange and esoteric terms claims to express profound insights, 'experts' without brains, without character, and without even a modicum of intellectual, stylistic, emotional temperament tell us about our 'condition' and the means of improving it."

He certainly provided some valuable perspective of the modern world. Though, to be fair, that is essentially the opinion espoused by Aldous Huxley in 'Brave New World'.

>2,500 years ago before "science" was its own thing the people who were figuring out how shit works called themselves "philosophers"
>fast forward to current year
>"science" has been an established separate thing for at least 400 years
>"philosophy" is reduced to masturbatory stoner nonsense and hasn't accomplished anything concrete and meaningful for humanity in centuries if not millennia
>still philosophers try to claim credit for all of science because Socrates invented logic a million years ago and because some modern scientists like to kill time by speculating about what it all means now and then

Have you heard of the philosopher David Stove? I'm curious what do you make of his critical take on science and its philosophers.
an example
https://archive.org/details/JobForTheGirls

>>16691000
>seethes about jews
>trusts thing that's so jewed, that big bang is an accepted theory despite having no evidence and being made up by some christnigger

>>16690900
(You) are neither.

>>16690897
lol

What destroyed scientific method is when the experiments coincidentally always have the same damn spooky action at a distance

>>16693192
Yes. I read Stove, he's great. Explains why Feyerabend and Karl Popper are just as terrible.

It must be suck to be a philosopher. Always struggling with envy and a well-deserved inferiority complex from your field never having done anything interesting compared to the successes natural sciences.

>>16696694
What would you recommend?

>>16690894 (OP)
The "scientific method" is meaningless waffling. Do you think Newton or any other great scientist was worrying about the heckin scientific method? Humans are natural empiricists, even if it's hard to nail down how exactly it works. As long as you have the discipline to mostly avoid deluding yourself, you can be a scientist (although you probably still won't be a good one). You can navel gaze eternally about How Science Akshually Works, the problem of induction etc, and you will get absolutely nowhere.

>>16697263
>the problem of induction
The answer to the problem of induction is literally just statistical analysis and giving the answer in probabilities, that's it really.
>This cannot be proved
>based on the data it comes with 99.9999% probability of this outcome.

>>16697399
What if someone questions how and why statistics and probability are supposedly valid methods?

>>16697409
depends on the statistical method used, if they keep asking questions point them to bayes theory

>>16697411
>if they keep asking questions point them to bayes theory
So you will just offer a "courtier's reply".

>>16697409
What do you consider valid methods and why are those the valid methods?

>>16697423
>courtier's reply
Sounds like gay debate faggot terminology. Read a book, and not a philosophy book. Something useful and insightful.