This post is a selective look at Paul Feyerabend, called the worst enemy of science by a 1987 Nature essay. The topic relates directly to the preceding posts on Postmodernismand Thomas Kuhn and is aimed at a discussion of how misunderstood science and misunderstood criticism of science has impacted business and technology.Feyerabend’s direct influence outside of the extended world of philosophy might be seen as fairly limited. But his indirect influence may exceed that of Thomas Kuhn. Unlike Feyerabend, Kuhn was never quoted by a pope.Read it at The Multidisciplinarian
Paul Feyerabend – The Worst Enemy of Science
William Storage | Visiting Scholar, UC Berkeley Center for Science, Technology, Medicine & Society
See also — Paul Feyerabend - "Science's Greatest Enemy" Attacks From The Grave by Hank Campbell at Science 2.0
This is reminiscent of the Chomsky-Derrida kerfuffle at Harvard, as well as analytic philosophers vs. Derrida.
The fact is that all parties are correct within their established universe of discourse and its context. This establishes the frame and in academic disciplines actually can institutionalize a particular frame. Feyerabend and other postmodernists and post-structuralists assert that human knowledge is inherently institutional. This shows up as the distinction between orthodoxy and heterodoxy in all fields, e.g., economics.
In his later work, Ludwig Wittgenstein explored the logic of ordinary language to elucidate how different worldviews erect different logical frames. Cognitive scientists are now discovering the corresponding brain functioning.