🚀 go-pugleaf

Tired of the same old flame fests?  Interested in philosophy of
science?  Interested in (or in attacking) such thinkers as Feyerabend,
Kuhn, Rorty, Davidson, Putnam, and Hacking?

I'm issuing (via this article) a challenge to both Defenders of Reason
and Cultural Relativists to discuss -- not just with me -- Paul
Feyeraband's book _Against Method_.  Why both groups are involved
should become clear below.  (It's not because PKF is a cultural
relativist.)

Now, many people suppose, these days, that Feyerabend has been
completely discredited.  I wonder if that is actually the case.
In any case, I think his views are worth taking seriously in a
serious discussion.

I recently saw that AM was in its 3rd edition and, since I hadn't
really looked at in in over 10 years, thought I would read it again.
On the other hand, merely reading it isn't that much fun.  So:

  As I read, I would like to bear criticisms of Feyerabend's position
  in mind, to see to what extent they are justified.

  Consequently, I'd like to hear some criticisms, and I'm looking
  to readers of this article to provide them.  (I already know some,
  but don't let that stop you.)

  In return, I will try to address the criticisms, and I will base
  my replies in the actual text of _Against Method_, plus some other
  texts that I find useful (for which see below).

  However, I do not insist that critics do the same.  They don't
  have to provide any textual evidence that Feyerabend actually
  holds the views they criticize, or textual evidence of any 
  other sort.  (Still, the more detailed the criticisms the
  better.)

  Nonetheless, once we've beyond the initial presentation of criticism,
  I hope that the discussion will pay attention to what Feyerabend and
  other authors actually said.  Bringing in textual evidence in this
  way will, I hope, keep the discussion from degenerating into the usual
  exchange of ill-thought out and mutually misunderstood positions.

  Of course, people can discuss Against Method and all related issues
  between themselves, not just with me.  I don't really mean to be at the
  center of this, just to get things going.

N.B. I've cross-posted this to a number of newsgroups where I've had or
seen interesting discussions in the past.  Followups are directed to
sci.philosophy.tech.  Even if you disagree with this, please don't
reply in all the newsgroups I listed initially.

Let me warn you that I intend to defend Feyerabend.  However, my
defense may not be what you expect.  My inclusion of eunet.politics
is significant here.  

A few years ago, I was flamed to a crisp for saying something in
eunet.politics that was interpreted as (but wasn't) a claim that
there were no worthwhile benefits to learning a foreign language.
It emerged that some of my flamers held a fairly strong form of
linguistic relativism in which language and culture were almost
the same thing.  It was even claimed, for instance, that one
could learn more about French culture by talking about computer
science in French than by going to France, talking to the French,
reading about French culture, etc, without learning French.

In such a debate, the extent to which translation is possible is
obviously relevant.  I found that Feyerabend's views on translation
and incommensurability suggested that translation was more effective
than some suppose.  Indeed, and contrary to what one might expect,
Feyerabend offers arguments against relativism and the usual,
extreme, view of what Kuhn and Feyerabend meant by incommensurability.

Now, other relevant texts.  I can think of a few off hand.  Others
may occur to me later.  Anyway: _Feyerabend's Farewell to Reason_;
Bjorn T Ramsberg(?)'s _The Linguistic Philosophy of Donald Davidson_
(plus Davidson's own work); Richard Rorty's _Contingency, Irony,
and Solidarity_; and Ian Hacking's something and Intervening.

Don't forget: follow up to sci.philosophy.tech, not to all the
groups I included initially.

-- jeff