| 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. |
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."