[lisper]

It wasn't meant to be convincing, it was meant to be an honest report of the situation. I don't remember the details. All I remember was that my assessment of it at the time was that it was devoid of merit, which is one of the reasons I don't remember the details.

Now, there are two possibilities: one is that I was wrong, that it has merit, and if I go back and revisit it that I will see now what I missed then. The second possibility is that I got it right back in the day.

But notice that we can actually use the scientific method to test this. These are hypotheses and they make predictions. In particular, the first hypothesis predicts that there should be some evidence that Feyerabend has merit. In particular, I would expect to be able to find someone who produced a useful result and credited that at least in part to his or her having read Feyerabend. I have never seen such an example. To the contrary, the only people I see citing Feyerabend are crackpots who are bitter about not being taken seriously.

Of course, I haven't looked very hard either, so it's entirely possible that there are counterexamples out there. But the appropriate response is not to argue about this or impugn my character, but simply to point me to the evidence that I've missed.

[fastasucan]

>Now, there are two possibilities: one is that I was wrong, that it has merit, and if I go back and revisit it that I will see now what I missed then. The second possibility is that I got it right back in the day.

A third option is that the merit of someones worked cannot be judged from whether one person find it compelling or not.

[lisper]

That's not a third option. The question of how to decide whether something has merit is orthogonal to the question of whether something has merit or not.

[keiferski]

When someone is comfortable dismissing extremely influential thinkers because they "don't remember and had a feeling it was dumb", they aren't engaged in a serious conversation, and they aren't a serious thinker. This isn't how actual philosophy works. Your intellectual laziness isn't my problem.

Feyerabend is widely considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century. This is not controversial. These are not crackpots, unless you think that the entire field of academic philosophy is composed of crackpots. Then again, it wouldn't surprise me if you did.

https://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2010/10/most-signific...

https://plato.stanford.edu/ENTRIES/feyerabend/

As far as your "useful result," one example of the man's influence is right here, on a highlighted section on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend#Outside_philos...

Your arrogant attitude here is very anti-science and very anti-curiosity. Dismissing someone that clearly is considered an expert in their field because they seemed "devoid of merit" is both lazy and ignorant. Again, you may disagree with Feyerabend (or with anyone else), but your lack of knowledge on something is not equivalent to a counterargument. A counterargument requires knowledge of the argument – which you neither have nor are interested in acquiring.

If you want to actually write something of value on the philosophy of science, I really suggest you go read a book about it first. If you think you've already got the answers and can easily dismiss a respected thinker's work because you "deemed it devoid of merit, maybe, but I can't remember," there isn't much serious philosophical discussion to have here.

[lisper]

> Feyerabend is widely considered one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century

L. Ron Hubbard has been very influential too, but that doesn't mean that re-reading Dianetics is likely to be an effective use of my time.

> As far as your "useful result," one example of the man's influence is right here

OK, Stephen J. Gould's endorsement is good enough for me. I will re-read "Against Method."

[keiferski]

L. Ron Hubbard isn't a philosopher of science. Did I claim him to be one? I didn't say "influential people."

[lisper]

> L. Ron Hubbard isn't a philosopher of science.

Says you. If you ask a Scientologist I'll bet they'll tell you different.

But if you don't like Hubbard, take Ayn Rand. Or Ken Ham. Or Mark Sargent. The supply of crackpots is limitless.

[keiferski]

Sigh. The philosophy of science is a well-established field. This isn't a controversial or fringe thing. To know this requires a few minutes of reading on Wikipedia.

No one thinks that Hubbard is a philosopher of science, probably not even Scientologists. (Because it's a different thing entirely.)

How can you be the author of a series on science and not be the slightest bit familiar with the field? And you want people to take your ideas seriously?

I'll say it again for the third time: this isn't a serious discussion.

[lisper]

Oh, the irony of someone defending Feyerabend on the one hand while dismissing Hubbard, Rand, Ham etc. on the grounds that "philosophy of science is a well-established field." Do you really not see how this is self-defeating?

> No one thinks that Hubbard is a philosopher of science, probably not even Scientologists.

I will bet you $1000 that I can find at least five Scientologists who will profess to believe that LRH was a philosopher of science.