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.
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.
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.
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?
No, again, because L. Ron Hubbard wasn’t writing about topics generally covered by the philosophy of science. Epistemological anarchy doesn’t mean that words suddenly don’t have meaning and that a sci-fi writer is reclassified as a philosopher of science. Feyerabend was not a philosopher of science because institutions deemed him so, but because he did work on subjects considered to be philosophy of science, which was then considered exemplary by other philosophers of science. This is common sense and not at all complicated for anyone that stops to think about it for half a second.
I am really having to re-invent the wheel here, it seems. And I am having a difficult time believing that you’re discussing this in good faith, so I think I’ll end it here.
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.