[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.

[keiferski]

No, that isn't ironic or self-defeating. Feyerabend was a member of more than half a dozen respected philosophy departments around the world. Hubbard was a science fiction writer that started a religion. There are in no way equivalent.

Again, you really don't seem to know what you're talking about here, at any level.

[lisper]

The whole point of "Against Method" was to argue for epistemological anarchy. A logical consequence of that is that the scientific establishment should not be given any special deference or credence. You are citing that very same establishment to support the proposition that this idea has merit. You don't see how that is self-defeating?