Why do people still believe science is more than an opinion when the idea of a scientific method got btfo in 1975?

Oh Wow didn't you read wittgenstein before? the term "scientific method" was cannot be defined by one universal property in the first place. not only "scientific method", every word is the same definition "problem" in the first place. What we only have is family resemblance, we only seek similarity between them.
So what we have is that scientific method ordinary people called "scientific method" is the method, but magic and alchemy are still not a scientific method. Definition problem of "scientific method" is not even a problem at the first place.

read the book
it is more than an opinion because >it just werks

scientific method works
scientists don't

You havent read that book.
Neither have you.

That book is an open invitation to every weirdo that has felt uncomfortable by science to develop a robust scientific theory. Not a denunciation of science ad such.

Popper was Feyerabend's Ph.D. advisor.

Read Hume idiot

The observation and recording of physical phenomena, and the synthesis of knowledge obtained therefrom, never became obsolete. Have you ever even thought for yourself about what science actually is?

It's valid because it can be turned into money. Nice try. The argumentation in support of the scientific method isn't because it's simply "right" or the truth but because it's the best thing we can do.

You're not really arguing for anything by saying 'it's the best we can do' either. Think about what 'best we can do' means, and what 'technology' means, and you'll see the two of you are saying the same thing.

Science is a closed-model interpretation. Its not just an opinion.

"Best we can do" is a loaded term. Scientific method is the best we can do to obtain the type of results we expect to get from science. All "best we can do" claims operate on circular reasoning, what defines "betterness" already defines the method, there is no "neutral state" of betterness that yields after the fact the best method.

Technology existed before science, sweaty.

Science is cancer.

Attached: Science is Experience.jpg (2128x1151, 430K)

>the idea of a scientific method got btfo in 1975
Sauce? Pic related? Any further reading on this?

Yes it is a fun (and obviously controversial) book. I also recommend Kuhn's Essential Tension for the same 'problematic' - both are classics and somewhat outdated. Make your way to the Stanford Encyclopedia and read the page on Feyerabend.

>Paul Feyerabend
More like Paul Fedora-bend, amirite?

let me know when hydrogen atoms stop being hydrogen atoms, then i'll take you anti-science people seriously.

No he was actually a very rich chad who had lots of girlfriends and kept travelling around with them

>Introduced by Ian Hacking
>Hack King
lol no thanks

I think it's more about avoiding the mythification of science.

scientism is a critique of popular culture, not the science itself.

>of popular culture
Scientists are the problem themselves, quite in a literal sense.

Just wondering who was anti-science ITT

just because there is no method to science it doesn't mean there is no science. people devote time and effort in hopes of making a breakthrough and use maths to pin down the nature of that discovery and make it coherent with previous ones. repeat ad infinitum

the op? science is not just an opinion lmao. it's literally true.

There are no atoms. Its a name we give to a particular phenomena we observe.

*eyeroll*
yes, how will we ever label anything? we are posting on very odd phenomena that we just label as 4channel dot org!

how so? what did scientists do wrong except for reporting the phenomenas that they discovered?

My comment was deconstructed. You're right. Am I however supposed to say that the scientific method is a theoretical framework based on assumptions and nothing more? I will anger STEMlets.
There aren't any anti-science people here. He just feels threatened. I heard the exact same phrase coming from overly religious people when people started talking about the Bible.

The argument: What I see, hear or perceive by any means must be true in the sense that it corresponds to reality is an "opinion" (assumption).
So the foundation of science is based on at least one opinion.
Now you will claim my argument is stupid because it's so "obvious" that it must be the case. I don't really care. You will fail at proving the assumption and probably evade the whole problem by insulting me.

The problem is that definition changes constantly. Atoms used to be the smallest particle and youd be an idiot for saying otherwise at a certain point in history. The thing im getting at is the idea of a smallest particle doesnt exist in nature, we use that idea to make the math work.

I mean, scientists are not careful enough with what they report to the masses. Sometimes scientist come to the wrong conclusions based on "correct" experiments (correct in a methodological sense), journalism and the illiterate folks do the rest.

The particular phenomenon was called atom and it's still the same thing. We just had an updated knowledge that it's no longer the smallest particle.

There is no issue with labeling phenomena. There is only issue with people not being pragmatic enough.

He was also a singer and theater student and fought in WWII

I would argue that science would still be applicable in non-realism situations. It's just that we haven't had chance to practice it.

Yikes.
Go back and KYS.

Attached: 1535486119217.png (1262x1202, 1.21M)

Name one (1) truth science has revealed (and held to).

Attached: save lives.png (569x493, 319K)

Fucking RETARD

What scientific method? No one treats it as anything more than a basic set of principles, a starting point. Or even more, just some tools deriving an approach and later picking things apart. There's a scientific method for each little branch of a subdiscipline. Doesn't mean they don't have some common basic qualities.

YIKES

Attached: 1557573904159.jpg (720x702, 74K)

>Thinking a foetus has thoughts or feelings
>Resorting to appeal to emotion propaganda memes

And this is why science matters. Fuck cars and the internet, it's the only way to exterminate ignorance

And a fetus isn't a person with its own inalienable rights? Talk about appeals to ignorance and feelings.

Kuhn > Feyerabend

>Thinking a human has thoughts or feelings
>Resorting to appeal to emotional propaganda memes
And this is why science matters. Fuck cars and the internet, it's the only way to exterminate ethics.

> Argue that science can't accurately portray nature in itself
> Use language to define a process of nature as is life

We found the retard. Either you accept interpretation as the only possible (imperfect) truth since the subject is in itself imperfect and there would be no interpretation whatsoever in the first place if he were not to exist or you accept the impossibility of real complete knowledge and thus take Uncle Witty's advice and shut the fuck up.

philosophy 101 and then done wrong.
Brainlet-tier.

Against Method is not a critique of the means by which science has proceeded historically (Feyerabend's observation was that this means was essentially "anarchistic"), or any of its fruits; rather it is a critique of the belief that science has proceeded according to one formalised method, the claim that this (imaginary) method holds a monopoly on scientific revealtion, and the active prescription of this method on the above basis by certain scientific ilk. Feyerabend's remedy for this trend was his tentatively-put and somewhat tongue-in-cheek "epistemological anarchism".
>t. actually read the book

Attached: Science is Mechanical.jpg (1962x1151, 561K)

Science, and as a result technology and industrialization, are objectively more valuable than literature.

Attached: Two-centuries-World-as-100-people.png (5343x3663, 431K)

ok but why are people generally unhappy in the first world or China and why hasn't science helped that

>statistical information
>if i redefine 'value' as 'technology' then technology is the most valuable
YIKES

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 163K)

It depresses me that you're the only other guy ITT who has actually read the book and understood it.

Everyone else deserves to be shot

OP didn't even read the book he's posting about.

Because I understand the Scientific Method and how it works. I thus, as a result, understand that it was never btfo and is indeed the greatest tool we have for expanding collective human knowledge.

Why are you still such a faggot, OP? What does your mother have to say about it?

The people who believe in science don't even when it doesn't suit their purposes, like the science of race and IQ.

>thinks industrialization is the consequence of scientists and their work and not the consequence of economical competition, popular consumption culture and capitalism.
Brainlet.

IQ is within psychology field which is not science.

It's based on data

This is half of the argument of Against Method, which admittedly OP botched.
Basically any prescriptive theory of how science "works" will inevitably fail to include some great scientific accomplishment in its conception of "science". In particular, Feyerabend identifies 4 heuristics which at the time were viewed by other philosophers as scientific paradigms and explains that had Galileo adhered to any of these methodologies he would not have made his discoveries. Instead, Feyerabend argues for an "anything goes" approach to scientific practice, and that practicing scientists (unconsciously) practice his "method".

now there's 3 of us

So..? IQ testing only describes the phenomena of how people score on IQ tests.

I like this poster's take. Do you think that science is just an opinion?

It is a coincidence that physics profs and lawyers have very high average IQ?

Yes and no. It's not a coincidence in the sense that because they scored highly on a test that would enable them to bypass the gatekeepers, that they would become practitioners of these professions. The relationship between the unknown ontology of intelligence and IQ tests *is* purely coincidence.

no

Annoying science fags is amusing. I go around asserting my free will and they lose their shit XD.

Attached: In the Sneed and feed over the sea.jpg (250x250, 10K)

Excuse me engineering and the labour or power-plant workers keeps your lights on.

They take the IQ tests after they're already physicists, one has nothing to do with the other. The more logical conclusion is that the same faculty is being used to take the test and to succeed as a physicist, ie. intelligence.

so, you can't prove that there is a link? even if you do, it's still strictly within psychological realm which is not science.

Are you just being wilfully obtuse?

You haven't made any actual claim. Are you being obtuse?

That's not true though. People score higher on I.Q. tests after they get trained in math and verbal communication.
Say before math training you score 103 after math training 118 where did those extra 15 points come from?

The claim is that IQ tests measure intelligence(imperfectly) because people with high scores tend to succeed at things which require intelligence, and those with low scores are incapable of doing much of anything at all complex. You act like this is ridiculous when it makes perfect sense

just because it "makes sense" doesn't mean that it actually accurately describes the phenomena of intelligence. newtonian mechanics "make sense" but it's nowhere close to being the physical truth.

newtonian physics is extremely close to the 'truth' of how matter behaves in a very large number of scenarios.

You can argue that IQ is flawed and we don't properly understand intelligence, which I would agree with, but the complete rejection of all the evidence gathered in the field strikes me as biased.

i don't reject the fact that black people score lower on iq tests than white people do on average. it's just unscientific and meaningless.

Forget about black people if you want, just look within one race. It is not unscientific and meaningless if it predicts for outcomes. That's all science even does. It's like you just don't want to see the logic

option for what?

the bar for science is just not "predicts for outcomes". it has to actually describe the phenomena.

you're the one who is refusing to accept the logic of science.

It does not have to actually describe the phenomena at all, some people think that that's not even possible. The laws of thermodynamics don't actually describe the phenomena, anything to do with gravity is complete memeing

The logic of science is about empirically testing to see what happens. You predict something, and then you see if it occurs, you establish causal links.

what? really?
you mean stuff like horse carriages? bow and arrows?