I am curious on if any of you have read Paul Feyerabend's "How to Defend Society Against Science." It's a bit of a read, but worth your time if you're interested in the role of science in society. Paul Feyerabend was a philosopher of science and often asked the sorts of questions that pissed of academics like Lawrence Krauss and pop-sci guys like deGrasse Tyson. There is a great deal in this essay I don't agree with, but it makes a proper mockery of those who literally say "follow the science".
PDF link below after a couple of excerpts.
For example, consider the role science now plays in education. Scientific "facts” are taught at a very early age and in the very same manner in which religious "facts” were taught only a century ago. There is no attempt to waken the critical abilities of the pupil so that he may be able to see things in perspective. At the universities the situation is even worse, for indoctrination is here carried out in a much more systematic manner. [...] Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer.
"Truth" is such a nicely neutral word. […] So it is easy to twist matters and to change allegiance to truth in one's everyday affairs into allegiance to the Truth of an ideology which is nothing but the dogmatic defense of that ideology. And it is of course not true that we have to follow the truth. Human life is guided by many ideas. Truth is one of them. Freedom and mental independence are others. If Truth, as conceived by some ideologists, conflicts with freedom, then we have a choice. We may abandon freedom. But we may also abandon Truth. […] My criticism of modern science is that it inhibits freedom of thought. If the reason is that it has found the truth and now follows it, then I would say that there are better things than first finding, and then following such a monster.
Edit: PDF link to scan of original article: https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/article/how-to-defend-society-against-science
I am curious on if any of you have read Paul Feyerabend's "How to Defend Society Against Science." It's a bit of a read, but worth your time if you're interested in the role of science in society. Paul Feyerabend was a philosopher of science and often asked the sorts of questions that pissed of academics like Lawrence Krauss and pop-sci guys like deGrasse Tyson. There is a great deal in this essay I don't agree with, but it makes a proper mockery of those who literally say "follow the science".
PDF link below after a couple of excerpts.
For example, consider the role science now plays in education. Scientific "facts” are taught at a very early age and in the very same manner in which religious "facts” were taught only a century ago. There is no attempt to waken the critical abilities of the pupil so that he may be able to see things in perspective. At the universities the situation is even worse, for indoctrination is here carried out in a much more systematic manner. [...] Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. This has nothing to do with science. It has something to do with the general quality of our civilization. Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer.
"Truth" is such a nicely neutral word. […] So it is easy to twist matters and to change allegiance to truth in one's everyday affairs into allegiance to the Truth of an ideology which is nothing but the dogmatic defense of that ideology. And it is of course not true that we have to follow the truth. Human life is guided by many ideas. Truth is one of them. Freedom and mental independence are others. If Truth, as conceived by some ideologists, conflicts with freedom, then we have a choice. We may abandon freedom. But we may also abandon Truth. […] My criticism of modern science is that it inhibits freedom of thought. If the reason is that it has found the truth and now follows it, then I would say that there are better things than first finding, and then following such a monster.