[analog31]

I'm a physicist, and read AM. It didn't overturn my own thinking about how to do science, but helped me understand my discomfort when non-scientists try to assert "the scientific method." Imposing a rigid methodology on science, that doesn't reflect the reality of how science is done, can be used as a weapon against science.

Over the years I grew uncomfortable with the fact that I could not track down any of his references, e.g., to Aristotle. I don't remember the specific cases any more, but still it was a bit unnerving.

[heisenzombie]

Hard agree. People are surprised when I, as a physicist, am so riled up by things like “trust science!” T-shirts and the general science-washing (a-la green-washing) of products, politics, etc.

I think this is part and parcel of the same “cargo-cult” appropriation of “science” that results in what you’re saying, and represents a real threat to science.

[jfengel]

I would say that "trust science!" tee-shirts aren't really about Feyerabend's epistemological anarchy. You could frame it that way, but that would be philosophy-washing (to coin a term).

Against Method points out that there's no rigorous method for pursuing the difference between truth and non-truth, but at least accepts that there is something like "truth" out there and that it's better than falsehoods.

When people put on "trust science!" shirts, they're not arguing about whether we should continue working on homeopathy. They're saying that people are promoting deliberate falsehoods, things that they know or should know are wrong, because they are indifferent to the difference between truth and lies.

Homeopaths at least want to be right. There are surely some charlatans, but at least some of the kooky nutbags selling homeopathic remedies believe in it. Against Method makes it impossible to argue that they cannot possibly ever succeed, if they keep revising their hypothesis, even though we "know" that they won't.

The opponents of those who "trust science", by contrast, just don't care if they're right. They care only that they've won some kind of victory in a culture war. They don't apply epistemic anarchy to all sciences, only ones that they view as ideological opponents.

That isn't the only threat to science, to be sure. Science and scientists make genuine mistakes. But again, that's not really important to those who are rejecting science for cultural reasons, not philosophical ones. That challenge makes dealing with the others even harder.

[heisenzombie]

I was responding to the parent’s

“ non-scientists try to assert "the scientific method." Imposing a rigid methodology on science, that doesn't reflect the reality of how science is done, can be used as a weapon against science.”

I think the “trust science” stuff is mixed into the same cargo-cult co-opting of science by people who are actually more worried about politics, identity, and generally what I would call “scientism”. To be clear, I think such people would NOT like Feyeraband. If you believe science is The One Source Of Truth, then Feyeraband is a heretic.

You’re also bringing in the other side: Those that reject science for cultural reasons. I think they don’t give a crap about Feyeraband. I also think the “trust science” scientism stuff is partly to blame for this cultural backlash.

I think Feyeraband is right, and that it strengthens the pursuit of science to acknowledge it.

I think scientism leads to the scientific method being misunderstood and misapplied, and makes public trust of science way more brittle.