User:Daask/sandbox/The Tyranny of Science

The Tyranny of Science is a book by Paul Feyerabend.

Publication history
based on lectures Feyerabend develived in 1992 at the University of Trent, Italy which were for a general audience, and presuppose no knowledge of his work

published in Italian in 1996, in German in 1998, and in English in 2011

historical fiction about major figures in the history of science

Claims
The widespread idea that science is successful Scientists and philosophers sometimes present science as a unified worldview, a monolith (or a monster, depending on one's preferences). It is not. Science is both incomplete and quite strongly disunified. science can easily be used to justify socio-political atrocities

1) argues science should focus more on the concerns of human life, such as social issues, bringing world peace and making people more loving 2) ignores meaning, which is left to philosophy and religion 3) crudely claims supremacy over other worldviews without justifying this superiority 4) falsely claims to have been successful 5) falsely claims to offer a single scientific worldview, obscuring the pluralism within science 6) research follows money and power. Views that succeed do so because they appeal to or serve elites and influencers, not because of intrinsic merit. 7) Against academic freedom 8) society needs to be protected from the influence of scientists

The application of science is a social and political process. One must consult thosewho are affected by scientific knowledge and products as much as with those who produce them.

Reception
excellent example of public lecturing - "engaging, educative, and entertaining"

"posed a couple of questions and presented some arguments which every scientist, philosopher and fan of them should consider at least once in a lifetime."

goal of science is not necessarily world peace

Feyerabend's procedure, his insistence on treating the views of his opponents in terms of their ancestry, contains a strong suspicion of what such opponents would undoubtedly think of as a genetic fallacy. It also depends quite heavily on his alleged personal preference for stories over arguments. If his opponent cleaves to arguments, it's hard to see how Feyerabend can do any more than reassert his own preference. After all, he can hardly argue that there's no such thing as a decent argument, or even that stories are somehow objectively preferable.

Feyerabend’s frustration is not that the sciences have surpassed philosophy in their power to explain how the world works, but that they have fled into an abstract, rational world-view that excludes subjective human emotions and suffering. Confronted with problems that are real and that are on the news every night the sciences claim ‘That’s not our business.’

"Sometimes I suspect that this is what Feyerabend wants, that his commitment to pluralism amounts to a thoroughgoing scepticism about the notion that any one idea (theory, framework, etc.) is really better than any other, epistemically-speaking. That would leave only non-epistemic modes of assessment, such as the assessment of how conducive to happiness views are. At other times I get the impression that Feyerabend thinks that if we could somehow make the competition between ideas fair, then we could say that one such view is epistemically-preferable to another. It's not clear whether the historical strategy is being used to show merely that certain views are undeservedly popular, or whether it's being used to show that no view could ever really deserve (epistemic) credit."