Podcasts about Feyerabend

In this episode, Megan and Frank examine astrology. What is astrology, and why do people practice it? What are the strongest objections to astrology? Should astrology count as a science? If not, why not? What can the case of astrology teach us about the role of science in a democratic society? And why does the ancient practice of reading the stars prompt us to ponder the deepest aspects of human experience? Thinkers discussed include: Aristotle, Cicero, Ptolemy, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, Carl Sagan, Ian James Kidd, and Massimo Pigliucci.-----------------------Hosts' Websites:Megan J Fritts (google.com)Frank J. Cabrera (google.com)Email: philosophyonthefringes@gmail.com-----------------------Bibliography:Philosophy of Science and the Occult | State University of New York Press (first section is an invaluable resource, containing the 1975 manifesto, Feyerabend's critique, and articles summarizing statistical studies disconfirming astrology)Cabrera - Evidence and explanation in Cicero's On DivinationLacusCurtius • Ptolemy — TetrabiblosLacusCurtius • Cicero — De Divinatione: Book IA double-blind test of astrology | NatureReadings in the Philosophy of Science: From Positivism to Postmodernism (See for short selections from Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos)Ian James Kidd - Why did Feyerabend Defend Astrology? Integrity, Virtue, and the Authority of Science (An excellent paper that very much informed our discussion of the science & society question)M. Pigliucci - Was Feyerabend Right in Defending Astrology? A Commentary on Kidd-----------------------Cover Artwork by Logan Fritts-------------------------Music from #Uppbeat (free for Creators!):https://uppbeat.io/t/simon-folwar/neon-signsLicense code: YYRPW29K1IDMU76F

Henry Feyerabend was an obedient man of God, a man of faith in the God who is faithful. Henry prayed and trusted, and the money came in unsolicited from people far and wide, day-after-day, month-after-month, and Henry's television broadcasts stayed on the air for over 50 years and is still going strong.

Henry Feyerabend had a persistent fire burning in his heart to preach, to sing, and to share his love for his Saviour. 50 years ago, Henry had no idea how the LORD was about to amplify his voice to lay down the foundation of what today is a national and international media ministry known as It Is Written Canada.

Bei diesem Autor werden sich Jan und Daniel einfach nicht einig: Schon zum zweiten Mal sprechen sie über einen Roman von Arno Geiger - mit sehr unterschiedlichen Ansichten. Ein anderes Buch löst bei ihnen dagegen fast schon hymnische Begeisterung aus. Das kann man von der literarischen Vorspeise in dieser Folge nicht sagen: Jan präsentiert einen Brei im Bauhaus-Stil. Die Vorgabe: Er darf nicht schmecken. Auch in den Büchern spielt das Bauhaus diesmal eine Rolle, passend zur Kulisse: Die Folge wurde im Fagus-Werk in Alfeld aufgezeichnet, ein Weltkulturerbe des Bauhaus. Und mit Gast Robinson Rönnfeld schauen sie auf die Literatur von morgen. Alle Infos zum Podcast: https://ndr.de/eatreadsleep Mail gern an: eatreadsleep@ndr.de Alle Lesekreise: https://ndr.de/eatreadsleep-lesekreise Unseren Newsletter gibt es hier: https://ndr.de/eatreadsleep-newsletter Podcast-Tipp: Robert Enke https://www.ardaudiothek.de/sendung/robert-enke/13831533/ Die Bücher der Folge: (00:02:30) Theresia Enzensberger: "Blaupause" (Hanser Berlin) (00:06:17) Arno Geiger: "Reise nach Laredo" (Hanser) (00:18:31) Richard Powers: "Das große Spiel", übersetzt von Eva Bonné (Penguin) (00:29:04) Charlotte von Feyerabend: "Seid nett aufeinander" (Droemer) (00:50:15) Andreas Hillger: "Gläserne Zeit" (Osburg Verlag) (00:52:20) Ivan Ivanji: "Buchstaben von Feuer" (Picus Verlag) Bestseller für die nächste Folge: "Die Frau am Fenster: ein Leben an der Seite von Caspar David Friedrich" von Birgit Poppe Hier gibt es das Rezept für den Bauhausbrei: http://www.ndr.de/kultur/buch/eatreadsleep952.html eat.READ.sleep. ist der Bücherpodcast, der das Lesen feiert. Jan Ehlert, Daniel Kaiser und Katharina Mahrenholtz diskutieren über Bestseller, stellen aktuelle Romane vor und präsentieren die All Time Favorites der Community. Egal ob Krimis, Klassiker, Fantasy, Science Fiction, Kinder- und Jugendbücher, Urlaubsbücher, Gesellschafts- und Familienromane - hier hat jedes Buch seinen Platz. Und auch kulinarisch (literarische Vorspeise!) wird etwas geboten und beim Quiz am Ende können alle ihr Buch-Wissen testen und Fun Facts für den nächsten Smalltalk mitnehmen.

Ihr wundert euch sicher, dass wir Beate eine weitere Episode widmen, aber in unserer 4. Episode konnten wir leider nicht alles unterbringen. Darüber hinaus musste doch das ein oder andere noch zurechtgerückt werden. Und dabei hat uns Charlotte „Charly“ von Feyerabend geholfen. Charly kontaktierte uns per Mail und wir beschlossen, sie in unseren Podcast einzuladen, denn sie ist eine wahre Beate-Expertin. Sie hat im Juni 2024 einen Roman veröffentlicht – „nach dem abenteuerlichen Leben der Beate Uhse“. Mit anderen Worten: Sie hat sich wirklich sehr lang und intensiv mit der Kunstfliegerin, Unternehmerin und Pionierin der Frauenbewegung beschäftigt.Und es ist erstaunlich, welche Informationen und Anekdoten Charly uns über Beate mitbringt. Wir lassen uns auch von ihrem Enthusiasmus anstecken, was auch gar nicht schwer ist, denn: Beate Uhse ist eine wahrlich beeindruckende und starke Frau, die schwere Zeiten durchgemacht hat. Kommt mit auf eine zweite, intensivere Reise durch ihr Leben! Ein großes Dankeschön an Charly, dass sie uns mitgenommen hat! Auf ihrer Website findet ihr weitere Informationen zu ihrem Buch „Seid nett aufeinander“, zu ihrer Lesereise und noch viel mehr:https://vonfeyerabend.de/Redaktion & Schnitt: Kim SeidlerDu möchtest selbst einen Podcast machen? Klicke hier: https://www.podcaststarkefrauen.club/p/ILvMj1Alle Informationen zu unserem Podcast, Episoden, unseren Workshops etc. findet ihr auf unserer Website: Podcaststarkefrauen.de Schreibt uns gern, schickt uns Feedback, teilt, liked, ihr wisst doch Bescheid! Wir freuen uns, von euch zu hören! Foto: Collectie / Archief : Fotocollectie Anefo Reportage under Wikimedia Commons #sheros #beateuhse #pionierin #starkefrauen #femaleidol  Möchtest Du Cathrin oder Kim auf einen Kaffee einladen und dafür die Episoden werbefrei hören? Dann klicke auf den folgenden Link: https://plus.acast.com/s/starke-frauen. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The last few weeks we've had some really explosive theories on the show, which have caused a stir in the comments and beyond. We sit down to talk about the philosophy behind why we believe exploring far out theories is so important, and use Paul Feyerabend's Against Method as the backbone for our discussion. We introduce the idea of scientific anarchy, which encourages us to lean into the uncomfortable reality that ideas cannot be prized simply because of their age, or their apparent agreement with existing data. The history of science is littered with theories that were wrong but useful, detectors that are engineered to give us the results we are expecting, and the weighty knowledge that the absence of evidence tells us nothing about what we'll find when we take a closer look at the inner workings of nature. Sign up for our Patreon and get episodes early + join our weekly Patron Chat https://bit.ly/3lcAasB AND rock some Demystify Gear to spread the word! https://demystifysci.myspreadshop.com/ Pick up some Feyerabend and support the pod when you do it here: https://amzn.to/3Y7bcQ8 (00:00) Go! (00:09:56) Podcast insider conspiracy theories (00:16:10) Surrendering to being a useful idiot (00:20:55) becoming a valuable mouthpiece (00:23:48) Patronage of the billionaire king (00:28:24) Two types of conspiracies (00:35:48) Can a free internet rise again? (00:44:35) Monoliths vs chaos, enter Paul Feyerabend (00:48:56) Heuristics and other cognitive offloads (00:55:08) Calcifying opinion into fact (00:58:02) Science is a historical process (01:01:37) Subservience of science to technology (01:04:31) Why Michael Hudson doesn't take libertarians seriously (01:06:49) Handling non-human entities (01:09:40) Triggering the psychological immune system (01:14:06) Counter-rule science (01:17:07) The approach of the Platonic Redditor (01:21:49) An argument for scientific anarchy (01:26:25) All theories have a little bit of gold (01:29:18) Does the buck stop anywhere? (01:35:45) All models suck, but I want to believe (01:41:39) Searching for the needle in the hay (01:47:26) Closing thoughts #sciencepodcast #longformpodcast #ScientificAnarchy, #PaulFeyerabend, #AgainstMethod, #PhilosophyOfScience, #ExploringTheories, #UncomfortableTruths, #ScientificRevolution, #ScientificDebate, #FarOutTheories, #ChallengingNorms, #SciencePhilosophy, #InnovativeIdeas, #BreakthroughScience, #ScientificMethod, #CriticalThinking, #AlternativeScience, #RevolutionaryThoughts, #NewPerspectives, #ScienceAndPhilosophy, #HistoryOfScience Check our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: https://www.youtube.com/c/DemystifyingScience AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics https://www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomics Join our mailing list https://bit.ly/3v3kz2S PODCAST INFO: Anastasia completed her PhD studying bioelectricity at Columbia University. When not talking to brilliant people or making movies, she spends her time painting, reading, and guiding backcountry excursions. Shilo also did his PhD at Columbia studying the elastic properties of molecular water. When he's not in the film studio, he's exploring sound in music. They are both freelance professors at various universities. - Blog: http://DemystifySci.com/blog - RSS: https://anchor.fm/s/2be66934/podcast/rss - Donate: https://bit.ly/3wkPqaD - Swag: https://bit.ly/2PXdC2y SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/ - Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySci MUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

Nach dieser Roman-Biografie schaut man mit anderen Augen auf Beate Uhse und versteht, was diese Frau wirklich geleistet hat.

Charly von Feyerabend, Alexandra Lüthen, Sonja Rüther: Let´s talk about Sex and Toys, Books  and Wordings In dieser Ausgabe geht´s Mal wieder über die schönste Nebensache der Welt. Nee nicht schon wieder mit Fußball um den geht´s ja in der #175 und der 179 auch wieder, dann zum Start der Euro 2024. Wir beschäftigen uns auch nicht mit der Hobbyeisenbahn, obwohl Charly von Feyerabend 2022 ein Buch über Caroline Märklin veröffentlicht hat. Das passt dann wohl eher nicht in eine Folge, die online geht, wenn die Sommernächte heißer und kürzer werden. Da passt dann eher das, worüber Sonja Rüther in ihrer ...Du möchtest deinen Podcast auch kostenlos hosten und damit Geld verdienen? Dann schaue auf www.kostenlos-hosten.de und informiere dich. Dort erhältst du alle Informationen zu unseren kostenlosen Podcast-Hosting-Angeboten. kostenlos-hosten.de ist ein Produkt der Podcastbude.Gern unterstützen wir dich bei deiner Podcast-Produktion.

Charly von Feyerabend, Alexandra Lüthen, Sonja Rüther: Let´s talk about Sex and Toys, Books  and Wordings In dieser Ausgabe geht´s Mal wieder über die schönste Nebensache der Welt. Nee nicht schon wieder mit Fußball um den geht´s ja in der #175 und der 179 auch wieder, dann zum Start der Euro 2024. Wir beschäftigen uns auch nicht mit der Hobbyeisenbahn, obwohl Charly von Feyerabend 2022 ein Buch über Caroline Märklin veröffentlicht hat. Das passt dann wohl eher nicht in eine Folge, die online geht, wenn die Sommernächte heißer und kürzer werden. Da passt dann eher das, worüber Sonja Rüther in ihrer ...Du möchtest deinen Podcast auch kostenlos hosten und damit Geld verdienen? Dann schaue auf www.kostenlos-hosten.de und informiere dich. Dort erhältst du alle Informationen zu unseren kostenlosen Podcast-Hosting-Angeboten. kostenlos-hosten.de ist ein Produkt der Podcastbude.Gern unterstützen wir dich bei deiner Podcast-Produktion.

How do we conduct science when there isn't a single isolated variable? What does that mean for carbon removal not taking place in a controlled environment? How does science even work?! Today's show originated from a question of how open-system carbon removal research can be conducted given that in a less-controlled environment, isolating for a single variable with replicability is less obviously possible. Does the scientific method really demand that, or is that some sort of pop culture understanding of science that needs to be challegned? To answer that question, host and co-founder of the Nori carbon removal marketplace, Ross Kenyon, asked Dr. Holly Jean Buck of the University at Buffalo and Anu Khan of Carbon180, to read two books and come on Reversing Climate Change to discuss them. The two texts are some of the foundational works of modern philosophy of science: Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and Paul Feyerabend's Against Method. Kuhn argued that paradigms are the collection of foundational beliefs we have about how science and knowledge production is conducted, and that they are quite hard to see outside of since most people work so deeply within them. It can often be a generational effort, as older scientists die and new ones take their places. Feyerabend goes further, arguing that we shouldn't just look for where one paradigm supersedes another, but be protective of competing systems of knowledge and the valuable ways of seeing that they unlock. The show applies their learnings to the state of the CDR industry, and attempts to ferret out carbon removal's existing paradigm, whether the world is ready for credits that are not tonne-denominated, and how much time we can afford in retooling and letting "normal science" work within an imperfect paradigm vs. trying to create an entirely new paradigm ex nihilo. Resources Anu Khan Holly Jean Buck Carbon180 Against Method on Wikipedia The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on Wikipedia The Guns of August by Barbara Tuchman Historiography Connect with Nori ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Purchase Nori Carbon Removals⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori's website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Nori on Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Check out our other podcast, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Newsroom⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Memes on Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Carbon Removal Memes on Instagram --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/reversingclimatechange/support

Sermões Adventistas é um podcast com o objetivo de reunir os melhores sermões realizados na Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia.Compartilhe estas mensagens com seus amigos e familiares. Jesus está voltando.#sermão #adventista #podcastadventista #sermoesiasd #pastoradventista #unasp #pregação #mensagem #espiritualidadePodcast AdventistaSermão AdventistaPregação Adventista --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/sermoes-adventistas/message

Die wissenschaftliche Methode: Gibt es nicht. Und auch keinen Erkenntnisfortschritt zu der Wahrheit. Höchste Zeit deshalb, die Naturwissenschaft basisdemokratisch zu regulieren. So der vor 100 Jahren geborene Philosoph Paul Feyerabend. Welche Bedeutung haben seine Thesen für die Gegenwart? Für viele ist er einer der bedeutendsten Philosophen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Für andere gilt der 1924 in Wien geborene Paul Feyerabend «als grösster Feind der Wissenschaft», ja als Vordenker heutiger Querdenker. Sich selbst bezeichnete Feyerabend, langjähriger Professor an der ETH Zürich, als erkenntnistheoretischen Anarchisten und Pluralisten. Mit Werken wie «Wider den Methodenzwang» oder «Erkenntnis für freie Menschen» stieg er in den 1970er-Jahren vom kalifornischen Berkeley aus zu einer Ikone linker Gegenkultur auf. Und er wirkte mit seinen genialen Polemiken und Performances über Jahrzehnte als lebendig gewordener Alptraum akademischer Philosophie. Zum 100. Geburtstag des 1994 in der Schweiz verstorbenen Selbstdenkers spricht Wolfram Eilenberger mit dem Zürcher Wissenschaftshistoriker Michael Hagner über die Wichtigkeit von Feyerabends Impulsen für die wissenschaftsdurchdrungene Gegenwart.

Die wissenschaftliche Methode: Gibt es nicht. Und auch keinen Erkenntnisfortschritt zu der Wahrheit. Höchste Zeit deshalb, die Naturwissenschaft basisdemokratisch zu regulieren. So der vor 100 Jahren geborene Philosoph Paul Feyerabend. Welche Bedeutung haben seine Thesen für die Gegenwart? Für viele ist er einer der bedeutendsten Philosophen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Für andere gilt der 1924 in Wien geborene Paul Feyerabend «als grösster Feind der Wissenschaft», ja als Vordenker heutiger Querdenker. Sich selbst bezeichnete Feyerabend, langjähriger Professor an der ETH Zürich, als erkenntnistheoretischen Anarchisten und Pluralisten. Mit Werken wie «Wider den Methodenzwang» oder «Erkenntnis für freie Menschen» stieg er in den 1970er-Jahren vom kalifornischen Berkeley aus zu einer Ikone linker Gegenkultur auf. Und er wirkte mit seinen genialen Polemiken und Performances über Jahrzehnte als lebendig gewordener Alptraum akademischer Philosophie. Zum 100. Geburtstag des 1994 in der Schweiz verstorbenen Selbstdenkers spricht Wolfram Eilenberger mit dem Zürcher Wissenschaftshistoriker Michael Hagner über die Wichtigkeit von Feyerabends Impulsen für die wissenschaftsdurchdrungene Gegenwart.

Sandra Åslund,  Ellen Dunne und Charly von Feyerabend  über Killer, Katzen, Kaffe  und Künstler! Bei sprengerspricht die erste reine Instagram-Runde. Wie´s kommt? Nun alle drei Autorinnen sind dort unterwegs, via social media gab´s auch den ersten Impuls. Autorin Anke Küpper empfahl Sandra Åslund den Podcast, die war im fernen Schweden, abseits jeder Zivilisation total begeistert und so war der Termin schnell gemacht: Zum Auftakt ihrer neuen Reihe. Nach Frankreich (Bordeaux und der Provence) wird jetzt in der neuen Wahlheimat, in den Wäldern Nordschwedens ermittelt. Maya Topelius (das ist tatsächlich ein ganz typisch schwedischer Name) heißt ihre neue Protagonistin. Der erste ...Du möchtest deinen Podcast auch kostenlos hosten und damit Geld verdienen? Dann schaue auf www.kostenlos-hosten.de und informiere dich. Dort erhältst du alle Informationen zu unseren kostenlosen Podcast-Hosting-Angeboten. kostenlos-hosten.de ist ein Produkt der Podcastbude.Gern unterstützen wir dich bei deiner Podcast-Produktion.

A partir de un artículo de opinión del diario El País, cuyo autor es un historiador llamado Guillermo Gordaliza, se va constatando que no hay representación política ni separación de poderes. Incluye el florilegio de hoy una interesante discusión entre don Dalmacio y don Antonio sobre si el actual Estado de partidos es un régimen, o un sistema político. Referencias de don Dalmacio a Augusto Comte y a Feyerabend. Antonio García-Trevijano Forte y Dalmacio Negro Pavón, 3 de marzo del 2016. https://www.ivoox.com/rlc-2016-03-02-pedro-sanchez-aquino-sostiene-contra-audios-mp3_rf_10643253_1.html Música: Andante sinfonía nº94 de Haydn. ---------------------------- Escucha la lista de reproducción de los florilegios de Trevijano: https://go.ivoox.com/bk/9608366 ---------------------------- ----------- ¡APÓYANOS! - Vía iVoox: haz clic en APOYAR (botón de color azul). - Vía Paypal: https://www.paypal.com/donate?hosted_button_id=Y4WYL3BBYVVY4 - Vía Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/MCRC_es ------------ mcrc.es diariorc.com yonovoto.info

Paul Feyerabend är berömd för sin syn på den naturvetenskapliga metoden som ett anarkistiskt sammelsurium av metoder. Men Kim Solin berättar om ett meddelande från andra sidan skapar osäkerhet. ESSÄ: Detta är en text där skribenten reflekterar över ett ämne eller ett verk. Åsikter som uttrycks är skribentens egna.Det finns två vanliga sätt att missförstå vetenskapsfilosofen Paul Feyerabend, ett om man inte läst honom och ett om man läst honom. Han mest berömda bok och den som förlänat honom en plats i filosofihistorien heter Against method, eller på svenska: Mot metodtvånget: utkast till en anarkistisk vetenskapsteori. Och det hör man ju, vad är en anarkist om inte en relativist som inte tror på någonting och som med postmodernistiska illusionstrick vill dra undan fundamenten för vår förståelse? Lägg till anekdoten om att Feyerabend under en biltur blivit så förbannad över en filosofisk meningsskiljaktighet att han stannat bilen, slängt ut sin medpassagerare och helt sonika lämnat honom där i vägrenen, ja, bilden av den excentriske revoltören tycks klar.Men för dem som läst honom ser det lite annorlunda ut. Vetenskapsfilosofin är ett fält som förvisso dragit till sig starka personligheter, men tålamodet med excentriska tankar är litet. Man ägnar sig åt frågor som: Vad säger vetenskapen egentligen och hur utvecklas den? Vad skiljer vetenskaplig kunskap från annan kunskap? Vad är egentligen en metod, vad är en teori? Inom denna disciplin brukar man placera Feyerabend på samma släkttavla som den logiska empirismen, alltså uppfattningen att endast empiriskt verifierbara fakta och logiska sanningar äger någon egentlig mening och att det är dessa trygga grunder som präglar vetenskapen och dess utveckling. Lite mer oppositionellt och lite mer dramatiskt framställt, fast ändå något i samma anda. Det är också så han brukar beskrivas i översikter och läroböcker.Det finns emellertid anledning att ifrågasätta även denna andra syn på hans gärning. Kring millennieskiftet hittade Feyrabends änka Grazia Borrini en diskett med ett sista brev från filosofen. Det var ställt till läsarna av den bok han skrev på när han avled 1994. Här står att boken är tänkt att läsas på ett något oväntat sätt. Den sägs vara skriven så att den ser ut som ett vanligt vetenskapligt verk, med fakta och generaliseringar, med fotnoter och referenser. Men allt är en hägring. När läsaren når sista sidan ska hon ha insett det utsiktslösa i sökandet efter en enda naturvetenskaplig metod som går ihop med naturens överflöd. Liknande tankar finns förstås redan i Against method, som behandlar naturvetenskapens utveckling och metod med ett särskilt fokus på fallet Galileo Galilei. Den anarkistiska undertiteln syftar på att den som får syn på vetenskapshistorien med alla facetter och stickspår blir så chockerad att hon utbrister att naturvetenskapen är ren anarki.Vad brevet tydliggör är att också Against method kan förstås som en ironisk bok. Och att Feyerabends gelikar inte framförallt återfinns bland 1900-talets naturvetare och logiker, utan i antiken. Han påminner rent av om Platon: för ofta när vi tror att Platon nått en systematisk förståelse, så kan vi plötsligt inte längre avgöra om den Sokrates som för ordet i hans dialoger är ironisk eller inte. Feyerabend föredrar berättelser framför systematiska redogörelser, eftersom han menar att för mycket går förlorat i en abstrakt begreppsapparat. Och som hos flera antika filosofer tar hans berättelser ofta en oväntad vändning. Efter vändningen kan man inte längre se på det tidigare sagda på samma sätt som förut. Det är som om någon gjort om spelreglerna, tidigare skeenden får en helt ny tolkning, huvudpersoner får biroller och tvärtom. Och när man en gång varit med om ett sådant omkullkastande blir man skeptisk till allt som framstår som enkelt och tydligt.Ironin hos Platon fungerar som en religiös ödmjukhet, menade E.N. Tigerstedt, ett värn mot en otillbörlig förenkling av tillvaron. Och oväntat nog så skriver Feyerabend i sitt brev att man förvisso inte bör kalla hans tänkande för något särskilt, men om man måste ge det ett namn så kan man kalla det mystik. Men det är en mystik som använder sig av logiskt hållbara argument, resonemang, vetenskapliga teorier och experiment. Han vill visa det mystika i att världen finns till genom att åskådliggöra hur varje försök att förklara hur världen är vid närmare och mer uppmärksam betraktelse visar sig vara otillräckligt. Men för att det mystiska inte ska ”stelna till något pompöst”, som författaren och filosofen Lyra Ekström Lindbäck uttryckt saken, så krävs ibland något chockerande och banalt. Det är just den dynamiken man hittar hos Feyerabend, för samtidigt som han beskriver sig som en naturvetenskapens mystiker är han allergisk mot högstämda lovtal till vetenskapen och besvarar dem med stötande sarkasmer som kan framstå som närmast puerila.Strikt argumentation hittar vi hos honom, men det han vill säga handlar om mer än det. I sin självbiografi beskriver han hur han genom relationen till sin fru kom att överge vissa av sina tidigare åsikter och att resonansen dem emellan fick honom att se och vilja se saker på samma sätt som henne. Det var inte fråga om några argument, tvärtom kunde han alltjämt hitta tusentals argument mot hennes uppfattningar. Något liknande gäller också för synen på vetenskapens utveckling. Kanske behövs det många förtroliga samtal och flera långsamma omläsningar för att lägga märke till det Feyerabend vill säga. Enbart argument är det i varje fall inte fråga om, utan snarare en form av inväntande uppmärksamhet, som inte genast säger emot eller slår fast. Också en abrupt händelse kan göra att man slås av insikt, Feyerabend själv fick ge upp sin förenklade syn på relationer när en stor förälskelse lämnade honom.Hur avgör man då om något är vetenskapligt när det inte finns någon enkel definition på vetenskaplig metod? I sitt sista brev skriver filosofen att det inte är vår förvirring som är förunderlig, utan att naturvetenskapen faktiskt åstadkommer så mycket upplysande och användbart. Att Feyerabend älskade fysik är omvittnat och framgår av de orden. Och med honom kan man dela en nykter, vardaglig syn på vetenskapen: den åstadkommer det den ska utan att behöva göra anspråk på någon enskild metod eller ens uppsättning metoder. Och det är när man tar ännu ett steg och blir varse det ogripbara och oförutsägbara i denna nyktra vetenskaps utveckling som verkligheten igen röjer sig i all sin sanna mystik. En sanningslängtan leder långsamt fram till att det man trodde var den säkrast fastslagna sanningen av alla, den vetenskapliga metoden, blir ett bländverk och förvandlas till en ödmjuk förundran inför tillvaron. Detta är alltså den nyktre vetenskapsfilosofens sista hälsning från graven: Jag är inget mindre än en mystiker. Nu är bara frågan: menar han allvar?Kim Solin, filosof

Frida Kahlo är kanske den konstnär som är allra mest känd för att konsekvent använda sitt eget ansikte och sin egen kropp i konsten. Men vad är priset för att skära ur sitt eget kött? Just nu pågår utställningen "Frida Kahlo - Her photos" på Kulturhuset i Stockholm. Lisa Bergström träffade Perla Labarthe Álvarez, chef på Frida Kahlo Museum i Mexico som var på Stockholmsbesök. Utställningen pågår 4 maj - 1 oktober 2023.REBECKA ÅHLUND SKRIVER OM SJÄLVMORDFörfattaren Rebecka Åhlund har skrivit flera barnböcker och 2019 kom boken "Jag som var så rolig att dricka vin med" som handlade om hennes personliga erfarenheter av att tillfriskna från ett beroende. Nu fortsätter hon på det självbiografiska spåret i boken "Någon måste vattna tomaterna". I den berättar hon om pappans självmord när hon precis skulle fylla elva år. En privat händelse som präglat hennes liv - och nu blir den offentlig.TYSKA JUDITH HERMANN VAR ETT "FRÖKENUNDER"Den tyska författaren Judith Hermann slog igenom med dunder och brak med novellsamlingen "Sommarhus, senare" 1998. Hon hyllades i Tyskland som ett Fräuleinwunder - ett "frökenunder" och boken sålde i hundratusentals exemplar. Sedan ledsnade kritikerna och hon föll från piedestalen. Nu har hon återuppstigit och tagits till nåder av de tyska kritikerna med romanen "Hemma", en berättelse som påminner starkt om hennes egen livssituation. Det handlar om att fylla femtio, skilja sig och flytta ensam till havet. Lina Kalmteg har träffat henne.OBS-ESSÄN OM ATT MISSFÖRSTÅ EN FILOSOFVetenskapsfilosofi är ett ämne med rötter i antiken, men upplevde många av sina mest intensiva debatter och omvandlingar under österrikaren Paul Feyerabends livstid, 1924 till 1994. Feyerabend kan beskrivas som en outsider på insidan av detta fält, och hans anarkistiska förhållningssätt till metod gav honom ibland rykte som vetenskapens fiende. Men vad var det han menade egentligen? Ja, filosofen Kim Solin berättar hur den frågan blev alltmer komplex efter Feyerabends död.Programledare: Lisa BergströmProducent: Nina Asarnoj

Gëtt et eng eenheetlech Methode oder Struktur fir all d'Wëssenschaften? A wat ass eng soirée de feu? Dat hei ass eng Erklärung zum Philo-Cours vun der 1e classique, zum Kapitel Wëssenschaftsphilosophie. An dëser Episod erklären ech den Paul Feyerabend an den epistemologeschen Anarchismus.

Najnowszy odcinek podcastu #2historykow1mikrofon pt. "Przyszłość z korzeniami w przeszłości" jest już dostępy online. Zaczęliśmy od wspomnień i osiągnięć związanych z okresem świątecznym. Jeden z nas z rozrzewnieniem wspominał lektury dzieciństwa, drugi ciepłe skarpetki. W sekcji poświęconej ciekawostkom jeden z nas przedstawił szeroką i nadspodziewanie skuteczną sieć komunikacji średniowiecznych krawców na Śląsku. Drugi opowiadał o nieznanym szerzej hobby pewnego wybitnego polityka. Omawiając lektury jeden z nas przedstawił relację z procesu beginek w Świdnicy oraz opracowanie zagadnienia antysemityzmu w okresie międzywojennym na jednym z najważniejszych polskich uniwersytetów. Drugi z nas przedstawił nieznany dotąd wykład Teodora Adorno poświęcony niebezpieczeństwu skrajnie prawicowych ruchów politycznych w Niemczech. Ponadto opowiedział o przepięknej książce poświęconej ogrodowi Konrada Adenauera oraz jego ogrodniczej aktywności, która towarzyszyła mu całe życie. W zasadniczej części naszego odcinka zastanawialiśmy się, jaka jest rola historyków w społeczeństwie, które musi podejmować decyzje brzemienne w skutki na dekady, w dodatku wiążące się z osobistym dyskomfortem obywateli? Czy podejmując takie decyzje możemy kierować się wiedzą o przeszłości? Bez wątpienia budujemy swoją wizję świata dzisiejszego w dużej mierze w oparciu o wyobrażenia przeszłości. Także jako społeczeństwa dokonując wyborów niejednokrotnie opieramy się na analogiach do przeszłości. Ważne, by czyniąc to mieć świadomość złożoności realiów i skutków jednostkowych decyzji. Przyszłość jest zakorzeniona w przeszłości – ale nie jest nią determinowana. - Rozgrzewka:)) - Nowinki / starowinki - 12:29 - Lektury - 30:19... - Temat przewodni - 1:11 Pełny tekst opisu zamieściliśmy na stronie internetowej naszego projektu: http://2historykow1mikrofon.pl/przyszlosc-z-korzeniami-w-przeszlosci/ Wymienione w czasie audycji publikacje i materiały: - „Kombatanci” w natarciu. Podsumowanie 2022 r., http://2historykow1mikrofon.pl/kombatanci-w-natarciu-podsumowanie-2022-r/ (ostatni dostęp: 4.01.2023) - Videoblog: Statystyki podcastowe - po co to komu, jak mierzyć, standaryzacja, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72oono5N-rI&t=1401s, (ostatni dostęp: 4.01.2023) - Strona www: Wyparte historie. Antysemityzm na Uniwersytecie Poznańskim w latach 1919-1939, https://wyparte-historie.amu.edu.pl (ostatni dostęp: 4.01.2023) - Publikacja (jako pdf), Wyparte historie..., https://press.amu.edu.pl/pub/media/productattach/m/i/michalski_m_antysemityzm_2022_-_amup.pdf (ostatni dostęp: 4.01.2023) - Proces beginek świdnickich w 1332 roku. Studia historyczne i edycja łacińsko-polska, opr. T. Gałuszka, P. Kras, A. Poznański, Lublin 2018. - Th. Adorno, Nowy prawicowy radykalizm, Kraków 2020, https://www.znak.com.pl/ksiazka/nowy-prawicowy-radykalizm-theodor-adorno-166177 (ostatni dostęp: 4.01.2023) - Ch. Feyerabend, R. Breitschuh, Adenauer. Der Garten und sein Gärtner, Köln 2020, https://shop.greven-verlag.de/adenauer.html (ostatni dostęp: 4.01.2023) - Wprowadzenie do metodologii historii, pod red. E. Domańskiej i J. Pomorskiego (jako pdf), https://ksiegarnia.pwn.pl/Wprowadzenie-do-metodologii-historii,998318111,p.html (ostatni dostęp: 4.01.2023) - E. Conze, Kein Kanzler für uns, "FAZ", 3.01.2023, https://zeitung.faz.net/faz/feuilleton/2023-01-03/kein-kanzler-fuer-uns/845275.html (ostatni dostęp: 4.01.2023) Krzysztof Ruchniewicz Blog: www.krzysztofruchniewicz.eu Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/krzysztof.ruchniewicz.3 Instagram: www.instagram.com/ruchpho/ Twitter: twitter.com/krzyruch YouTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCT23Rwyk…iew_as=subscriber Przemysław Wiszewski Blog: www.przemysławwiszewski.pl Facebook: www.facebook.com/przemyslaw.wiszewski Instagram: www.instagram.com/przewisz/ Twitter: twitter.com/wiszewski YuoTube: www.youtube.com/channel/UCuq6q08E…iew_as=subscriber Do nagrania intro i outro wykorzystaliśmy utwór RogerThat'a pt. „Retro 70s Metal” (licencja nr JAM-WEB-2020-0010041).

Lakatos in a nutshellScientists join research programmes. Research programmes are characterized by a small hard core of 2-5 postulates that guide development of theories and experiments. The hard core is not questioned from within the research programme. To be progressive, a research program must produce a series of dramatic ("novel") predictions that are confirmed by experiment. This is in contrast to the mainstream account of science, which emphasizes that it's rational to believe in a theory only if its predictions are not (yet) refuted. Lakatos's argument is that real scientists don't abandon beliefs because they're refuted. Indeed, "theories grow in a sea of anomalies, and counterexamples are merrily ignored."While anomalies or counterexamples are generally shelved to deal with later, some are too telling to ignore. Scientists react by producing an protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses. Those are of two sorts:The good kind are theories in their own right that also lead to novel predictions and confirmations."ad hoc" hypotheses are those purely created to defend the research programme, to explain away counterexamples. They don't lead to useful predictions.Note that you can't tell from the outside which category a protective theory falls into. That's discovered over time. Unlike the hard core, parts of the protective belt can be dropped or replaced.A research programme is degenerating if:it does not lead to stunning new predictions (at least occasionally...);all its bold predictions are falsified; andit does not grow in steps which "follow the spirit of the programme". That most likely means that it's no longer building by finding implications of its hard core. Instead, the researchers spend their time constructing ad hoc protective theories.A research programme can recover from degenerating and become progressive again.The wikipedia article has more detail. It's pretty good as of this episode's publication date.ReferencesThe standard reference is Lakatos's Philosophical Papers, Volume 1: The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes, 1978, Currie & Worrell (editors). I personally found a series of Lakatos's transcribed lectures more useful for this episode. They're in For and Against Method: Including Lakatos's Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, 1995, Motterlini (editor). Lakatos and Feyerabend were both friends and sparring partners with very different views about science. Unfortunately, Feyerabend didn't save most of Lakatos's letters, and Feyerabend's letters tend more toward gossip than debate about issues. It's quite a loss, given that Lakatos died young (age 51).I don't mention it in the podcast, but Lakatos's Proofs and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical Discovery, 1976, Worrall and Zaher (editors) is a wonderful book. It's a series of fictional conversations between a teacher and his students that recapitulates the history of Euler's polyhedron formula, V-E+F=2.  As with his later Methodology did for science, Lakatos demonstrates that mathematics isn't just a steady accumulation of knowledge. Mathematicians don't just play the definition-theorem-proof game; they also use techniques like "monster barring". You'll be surprised by how entertaining it is.Immanuel Velikovsky, Worlds in Collision, (first edition, 1950). Wikipedia article.The Millikin oil drop experiment.The manifesto for Agile software development.Kent Beck and Cynthia Andres, Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change (second edition, 2004).Edward Yourdon, Death March (first edition 1997).My Bothered Bolsheviks are described in Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power (1878-1928), 2014.CreditsImre Lakatos courtesy Library of the London School of Economics and Political Science, No restrictions, via Wikimedia Commons

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: No One-Size-Fit-All Epistemic Strategy, published by Adam Shimi on August 20, 2022 on The AI Alignment Forum. This work was done while at Conjecture. This post has been written for the second Refine blog post day, at the end of the first week of iterating on ideas and concretely aiming at the alignment problem. What constantly frustrates me about the old school philosophers of science, the Poppers, the Kuhns, even the Feyerabend, is their obsession with finding a few simple "rules of science" to apply anywhere and everywhere. This obsession for the overly general (even in the case of the anarchist Feyerabend) leads to leaving much value and insight on the table because all these compressions misses relevant insights in the history of science. Popper erects falsification and self-contradiction as the death of a theory, missing all the cases where throwing the theory away was not the correct move. (Examples: Kékulé on the structure of Benzene, Galileo and Copernic on the moving Earth) Kuhn pretty much defines a mature science as having only a single paradigm, where many of the advances in science required and thrived off pluralism (Examples: the methodological omnivory of historical scientists, the distance problem and chemical formula determinations in Chemistry) Feyerabend concludes from his insightful criticism of Popper's view that there is no rule in science and that "Anything Goes", thus refusing to see regularities that exists within the history of science (See levels of pluralism for an example of drawing on these regularities) Once again, the issue is not that these thinkers contributed nothing: Popper pushed falsification to interesting places (like evolutionary epistemology); Kuhn articulated beautifully the role of normal science; Feyerabend made accurate and crucial criticisms of the existing methodologies. The issue is instead that none of them just thought that the strategies that should be used in science, the criteria for what makes sense and is accepted, might depend on the context. Not in a relativist sense of having different notions of truth, but instead saying that epistemic strategy X, which works in field F, might not work in field G. Nowhere is this lack of context sensitivity clearer than in the old-school belief that Physics is a representative science. To see why I think this doesn't work, let's look at one concrete example: the dull function hypothesis. In the words of A. Zee, this is the strategy that assumes that when you have to find a function underlying some data, it will be a "boring" function that is simple and has all the good mathematical properties, like a constant or an exponential. (Fly By Night Physics, A. Zee, 2020) The unspoken assumption, again based on sense and experience, is that themajority of the functions appearing in physics are fairly boring functions thatdo not have especially wild properties. And most of the time, in physics, such guesses actually work! From this, should we expect the dull function hypothesis to generalize to all of science? Clearly not! It is completely possible (and confirmed by experience) that the functions underlying advanced ML tasks and social processes, when they can be inferred, are far more complex than the ones physicists can guess. What this examples illustrates is how the successes of physics should not only be ascribed to the genius of physicist, but also to the easiness of the epistemic circumstances underlying most physical problems. Historians and Philosophers of Science seem to have caught on, as they tend to pay far more attention nowadays to the specific context of historical discovery and the underlying parameters of the problems that scientists solved. Yet we are still missing good descriptions of toolboxes of epistemic strategies with the epistemic circumstances in which they...

On the Land O'Lakes StatementThe original statement: “Statement on the Nature of the Contemporary Catholic University”Fr. John Jenkins, CSC, “The document that changed Catholic education forever”Dr. Michael McLean, “‘Academic Freedom' and the Tyranny of the Modern College Campus”Optionally, see also §III of “A Porposal for the Fulfillment of Catholic Liberal Education” the founding document of Thomas Aquinas CollegePatrick Reilly, “The Land O' Lakes Statement Has Caused Devastation For 49 Years”Church DocumentsPope Leo XIII, LibertasVatican II: Gravissimum EducationisOptionally, see Lamb & Levering, eds. The Reception of Vatican II, ch. 15, Paige E. Hochschild's commentary (file attached)Pope St. John Paul II: Ex Corde EcclesiaePope Benedict XVI: La Sapienza University speech of 2008This speech was cancelled due to faculty protests, evidently over use of quote in a 90's speech of Ratzinger's quoting Feyerabend contra Galileo here

126 – Neceser Epistemológico – Entrevista Feyerabend - Parte 2 Es momento de continuar con la entrevista Feyerabend, en donde veremos sus pensamientos más ácidos y directos, esperemos que lo disfruten. Puedes escucharlo desde la aplicación SPOTIFY:https://open.spotify.com/embed/show/1uobRUSrFJp52FZdcsCOQe?si=68RLeyXWQaW3FLQw8VNwGQ Puedes escucharlo directamente desde IVOOX: https://ar.ivoox.com/es/podcast-educacion-para-jovenes-epistemologia-audio_sq_f1638689_1.html Puedes escucharlo directamente desde YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDaC646HXI5jCnkji4jBtMQ/featured?view_as=subscriber Puedes escucharlo directamente desde GOOGLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.google.com/?feed=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuaXZvb3guY29tL2VkdWNhY2lvbi1wYXJhLWpvdmVuZXMtZXBpc3RlbW9sb2dpYS1hdWRpb19mZ19mMTYzODY4OV9maWx0cm9fMS54bWw&ep=14 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde APPLEPODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/au/podcast/educaci%C3%B3n-para-j%C3%B3venes-epistemolog%C3%ADa-por-audio/id1448671719 Puedes escucharlo directamente desde CASTBOX: https://castbox.fm/channel/Epistem%C3%B3logo-Ebrio-id1929217?country=us Tenemos Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/epistemologoebrio Tenemos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/epistemologoebrio/ Tenemos Twitter: https://twitter.com/paravano69 ¡Siempre puedes compartirlo o a tu peor enemigo o a tu mejor amigo! SALUD Y BUENAS CIENCIAS #epistemología #filosofía #ciencia #podcast #epistemólogoebrio #neceser #neceserepistemológico

Riva Tez wants to fund epistemological anarchy in science. Former VC, Former Director at Intel, former store owner, Riva does whatever she wants.We talked about how Riva built a unique career doing whatever she wants, what she's learned from the philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend, why the brain might be an antenna, why she moved away from Transhumanism, why Rationalism is cringe, how she thinks Urbit will win, and how she's planning to introduce epistemological anarchism to contemporary science funding.✦ Riva is on Twitter at https://twitter.com/rivatez✦ Riva's writings: hardtowrite.comOther Life✦ Subscribe to the Other Life newsletter at OtherLife.co✦ We're building a new country at Imperceptible.Country

No usual filosofia e ciência andam de mãos dadas sendo uma apoiada na outra e assim é feito a história, mas nem sempre autores concordam plenamente uns com os outros e assim surgem teorias que tentam justificar uma perspectiva ou refuta-la, mesmo que essas teorias façam parte do papel de outro embasamento eles podem dizer que alguém está errado ou parcialmente errado ou certo assim nesse ponto surge Kuhn, Popper, Lakatos e Feyerabend quatro filósofos que vão disputar por um lugar de fala na ciência cada um com sua concepção. Até que ponto Kuhn está certo? Ou Popper? Isso relaciona bem com cada uma de suas teorias e nesse segmento será retratado como cada pensador achava sobre o que é ciência, bom podcast e valeu!

Pour ce troisième podcast qui vous est proposé par le pôle recherche et esprit critique. Quelle place donner à notre expérience personnelle ? Est-ce qu'elle peut suffire pour prendre des décisions ? Y-a-t'il des exemples historiques qui doivent nous faire réfléchir ? Pour répondre à ces questions, Florian COVA, philosophe et professeur à l'université de Genève, répond aux questions de Léo LANGLAIS sur le sujet. --> Retrouvez Florian COVA : Sur Twitter : @CovaFlorian https://twitter.com/CovaFlorian Sur son site internet : https://sites.google.com/site/floriancova/ --> Retrouvez Léo LANGLAIS : Sut Twitter : @Leo_LANGLAIS (https://twitter.com/Leo_LANGLAIS) Bibliographie : Anders, E. O. (2016). ‘A Plea for the Lancet': Bloodletting, Therapeutic Epistemology, and Professional Identity in Late Nineteenth-century American Medicine. Social History of Medicine, 29(4), 781-801 Tetlock, P. E., & Gardner, D. (2016). Superforecasting: The art and science of prediction. Random House Redelmeier, D. A., & Tversky, A. (1996). On the belief that arthritis pain is related to the weather. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93(7), 2895-2896 Pour aller plus loin : Alan Chalmers, Qu'est-ce que la science ? : Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend , Le Livre de Poche, coll. « Biblio essais », Paris, 1987 (ISBN 2-253-05506-9) trad. Michel Biezuski Grégoire Chamayou, Les corps vils. Expérimenter sur les êtres humains aux XVIIIe et XIXe siècles, La Découverte, coll. « Les empêcheurs de penser en rond », 2008, 422 p., EAN : 9782707156464. Florian Cova, l'épistémologie opportuniste de Didier Raoult (20/08/2020), La menace théoriste. https://menace-theoriste.fr/lepistemologie-opportuniste-de-didier-raoult/ (Version courte : https://medium.com/@florian.cova/l%C3%A9pist%C3%A9mologie-opportuniste-de-didier-raoult-7359ec4a3006) La chaine youtube de Mr Phi : https://www.youtube.com/c/MonsieurPhi?app=desktop Richard Monvoisin, Nicolas Pinsault. Tout ce que vous n'avez jamais voulu savoir sur les thérapies manuelles. 2014. ⟨hal-02008785⟩ https://books.google.fr/books?hl=fr&lr=&id=pQV_BAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PT5&dq=tout+ce+que+vous+n%27avez+jamais+voulu+savoir+sur+les+th%C3%A9rapies+manuelles&ots=4wFM4Ck__g&sig=TSaHNNjS24Mr_pY68PYbc4VdZwo&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=tout%20ce%20que%20vous%20n'avez%20jamais%20voulu%20savoir%20sur%20les%20th%C3%A9rapies%20manuelles&f=false

Alexa and Yoel tackle Paul Feyerabend, the wild man of philosophy of science. What can we learn from his "anything goes" argument for methodological anarchy? We go deep on the first five chapters of Feyerabend's most famous work, "Against Method," and discuss his (maybe not entirely serious) arguments for extreme theory proliferation, ignoring the data, and Chinese herbal medicine. Also, we discuss which Christmas album is superior: Sia or Dolly Parton.

On Against Method (1975). In dialogue with Lakatos, Feyerabend claimed that scientific progress can not be explained rationally, so how does it progress? Is F. just arguing against the possibility of any philosophy of science? Part two of this episode is only going to be available to you if you sign up at partiallyexaminedlife.com/support or via Apple Podcasts. Get it now or listen to a preview. Sponsors: Get connected with a licensed therapist at betterhelp.com/partially. Get a free month of Great Courses lectures and lots of other great content at Wondrium.com/PEL. Get a free month's access to a vast library of guided meditations at Headspace.com/PEL. Get your first bag of coffee free and $5 off your bundle at DrinkTrade.com/pel (code pel).

Mere videnskabsteori. Thomas Kuhn teori om videnskabelige paradigmer og Paul Feyerabends "anything goes".

Sara Nilgün Öcal'ın hazırlayıp sunduğu sosyal hizmet için felsefe problemlerinin yeni bölümünde Anarşist Bilim görüşünün kışkırtıcı öncüsü Feyerabend'in bilimsellik ölçütlerine bakışının sosyal hizmetteki izlerini arıyoruz. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/sosyalcalisma/message

Galileu Galilei, Newton, Darwin, círculo de Viena, Popper, Kuhn, Feyerabend.

Eiko Fried is an Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology at Leiden University. He recently published a target article in Psychological Inquiry about the lack of theory building in network and factor models, and how this impedes progress.In this conversation, we talk about that article, problems with theories in psychology, Eiko's general approach to science, and much more.BJKS Podcast is a podcast about neuroscience, psychology, and anything vaguely related, hosted by Benjamin James Kuper-Smith. New conversations every other Friday. You can find the podcast on all podcasting platforms (e.g., Spotify, Apple/Google Podcasts, etc.).Timestamps0:00:04: Eiko's photography0:03:33: The Lancet Psychiatry profile about Eiko / being a generalist0:15:42: Eiko's "No Committee"0:26:33: Begin discussing Eiko's paper "Lack of theory..."0:49:55: Theories don't have to be correct0:53:02: Model comparison in network and factor models, and constraints of the scientific (publishing) industry1:14:14: Useful fictions in science1:22:03: Writing critiques without pointing fingers1:25:03: Paul Meehl1:28:09: Education in PsychologyPodcast linksWebsite: https://bjks.buzzsprout.com/Twitter: https://twitter.com/BjksPodcastEiko's linksWebsite: https://eiko-fried.com/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.de/citations?user=DUK0qQoAAAAJTwitter: https://twitter.com/EikoFriedBen's linksWebsite: www.bjks.blog/Google Scholar: https://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=-nWNfvcAAAAJPaul Meehl's lectures on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLzRWx56_mpAT5yWRI-po-ybK9uAyZNX_zReferencesBorsboom, D. (2013). Theoretical amnesia. Open Science Collaboration Blog.Feyerabend, P. (1993). Against method.Fried, E. I. (2020). Lack of theory building and testing impedes progress in the factor and network literature. Psychological Inquiry.Fried, E. I., Greene, A. L., & Eaton, N. R. (2021). The p factor is the sum of its parts, for now. World Psychiatry.Frith, U. (2020). Fast lane to slow science. Trends in Cognitive Sciences.Kellen, D., Davis-Stober, C., Dunn, J. C., & Kalish, M. (2020). The problem of coordination and the pursuit of structural constraints in psychology. PsyArXiv.Kendler, K. S., Aggen, S. H., Werner, M., & Fried, E. I. (2020). A topography of 21 phobic fears: network analysis in an epidemiological sample of adult twins. Psychological Medicine.Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of consulting and clinical Psychology.Meehl, P. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry.Meehl, P. E. (1990). Why summaries of research on psychological theories are often uninterpretable. Psychological Reports.Morgan, J. (2019). Eiko Fried: organising incoherence with models, networks, and systems. The Lancet Psychiatry.Smaldino, P. E. (2017). Models are stupid, and we need more of them. Computational Social Psychology.Yarkoni, T. (2020). Implicit realism impedes progress in psychology: Comment on Fried (2020). Psychological Inquiry.

A brief discussion of the emergent themes in the thought of Paul Feyerabend and their relevance to current juncture between Thomas Lynn and Stephen Wallpe. Feyerabend protested an undue methodological rigidity in science, and the primacy granted to it by contemporary society.

7.4 Les révolutions scientifiques ont-elles lieu en sciences humaines? Kuhn suggère que oui, alors que toutes les données historiques dans lesquelles il puise sa pensée relèvent d’épisodes précis de l’évolution des sciences naturelles. Nous abordons aussi des questions plus larges de l’épistémologie anglo-saxonne et de sa pertinence pour les sciences humaines. 7 - RÉVOLUTIONS SCIENTIFIQUESEn 1962, Thomas Kuhn, un physicien se convertit en philosophe et historien des sciences avec la publication de The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, oeuvre majeure en philosophie des sciences dans laquelle il introduit les idées de progrès révolutionnaire, de paradigm shift (changement de paradigme) et bien plus. Pour faire un mauvais jeu de mots, ce livre qui porte sur les révolutions est lui-même toute une révolution!Programme en 4 parties:Background et histoireLe schéma kuhnien du progrès historique de la scienceLes nouveautés kuhniennes apportées à la philo des sciencesCritiques de Kuhn. Les révolutions scientifiques ont-elles lieu en sciences humaines?ENVOYEZ-NOUS VOS COMMENTAIRES, QUESTIONS ET SUGGESTIONSYoutube: Dialogues Dilettantes (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7IL0WJ1TAkUsNTfl3YUxQQ?view_as=subscriber)ERRATUMRienPOUR POUSSER VOS LECTURESKuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (en allemand; Popper le réécrit en anglais en 1959). Texte classique. Très influent aujourd’hui et lors de la publication de The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, une lecture suffira à vous convaincre du gouffre énorme entre Kuhn et ses contemporains.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, 1965 Les travaux d’un colloque tenu en 1965 à Londres où s’opposent directement Kuhn et Popper. Vous y trouverez l’article de Margaret Masterman que nous mentionnons. Aussi, Imre Lakatos offre une version bonifiée du falsificationnisme poppérien.Feyerabend, Against Method, 1975. Anarchisme épistémologique. Feyerabend tente de montrer qu’il n’y a aucune méthode infaillible en science et, qu’ainsi, toutes les méthodes se valent (“Anything goes”). On peut véritablement dire que Kuhn a ouvert la porte à ce genre de texte en grande rupture avec la soi-disant pureté intellectuelle de la philosophie des sciences dominante de la première moitié du 20è siècle.

In diesem Kapitel dreht sich alles um die "narzisstischen Kränkungen der Menschheit", diagnostiziert 1917 von Sigmund Freud. Und wir sind nicht der MIttelpunkt des Kosmos; aber dafür der Mittelpunkt unserer eigenen Welt. Und ist das nicht, psychologisch gesehen, die wichtigere Perspektive? Darüber diskutieren in dieser Folge Niklas, Claus und Marius.

This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Matteo Collodel. They speak about the role that Karl Popper and critical rationalism played in the intellectual development of Paul Feyerabend, the nature of the Feyerabend-Popper relationship, the Popperian ‘School' that formed at the London School of Economics and the strained relationships that developed within this group, the differing accounts of the members and the controversies that arose, where and how Feyerabend's philosophy broke with Popper's, and whether or not Feyerabend should be considered a Popperian. Matteo Collodel earned his diploma di laurea (BA+MA) and his PhD in Philosophy from the Ca' Foscari University of Venice (Italy), with the philosophy of science as his main area of specialization and historically-oriented dissertations on the development of Mary B. Hesse's thought (2001) and of Paul K. Feyerabend's idea of incommensurability (2007), respectively. Matteo is a ‘subject expert' at Ca' Foscari University of Venice (https://www.unive.it/data/people/23719605) and he worked on an archival project at Humboldt University of Berlin (funded by the German Research Foundation) whose main aim was to collect, transcribe and edit Feyerabend's correspondence with Popper, Feigl, Carnap, Hempel, Kuhn, Watkins, Agassi, and Lakatos, among others. Matteo is the co-editor of the book ‘Feyerabend's Formative Years. Volume 1. Feyerabend and Popper' (https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030009601) and his regular academic work can be found at: Matteo Collodel | Humboldt Universität zu Berlin - Academia.edu *** Was Feyerabend a Popperian? (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0039368115000977?via%3Dihub and https://www.academia.edu/2969684/Was_Feyerabend_a_Popperian_4th_Draft_11_February_2015_). Support via Patreon – https://www.patreon.com/jedleahenry Support via PayPal – https://www.paypal.me/jrleahenry Shop – https://shop.spreadshirt.com.au/JLH-shop/ Support via Bitcoin - 31wQMYixAJ7Tisp773cSvpUuzr2rmRhjaW Website – The Popperian Podcast — Jed Lea-Henry Libsyn – The Popperian Podcast (libsyn.com) Youtube – The Popperian Podcast - YouTube Twitter – https://twitter.com/jedleahenry RSS - https://popperian-podcast.libsyn.com/rss *** Underlying artwork by Arturo Espinosa

Dans cet épisode 7.3, nous discutons des nouveautés Kuhniennes.En 1962, Thomas Kuhn, un physicien se convertit en philosophe et historien des sciences avec la publication de The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, oeuvre majeure en philosophie des sciences dans laquelle il introduit les idées de progrès révolutionnaire, de paradigm shift (changement de paradigme) et bien plus. Pour faire un mauvais jeu de mots, ce livre qui porte sur les révolutions est lui-même toute une révolution!Programme en 4 parties:Background et histoireLe schéma kuhnien du progrès historique de la scienceLes nouveautés kuhniennes apportées à la philo des sciencesCritiques de Kuhn. Les révolutions scientifiques ont-elles lieu en sciences humaines?ENVOYEZ-NOUS VOS COMMENTAIRES, QUESTIONS ET SUGGESTIONSYoutube: Dialogues Dilettantes (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7IL0WJ1TAkUsNTfl3YUxQQ)ERRATUMRienPOUR POUSSER VOS LECTURESKuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (en allemand; Popper le réécrit en anglais en 1959). Texte classique. Très influent aujourd’hui et lors de la publication de The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, une lecture suffira à vous convaincre du gouffre énorme entre Kuhn et ses contemporains.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, 1965 Les travaux d’un colloque tenu en 1965 à Londres où s’opposent directement Kuhn et Popper. Vous y trouverez l’article de Margaret Masterman que nous mentionnons. Aussi, Imre Lakatos offre une version bonifiée du falsificationnisme poppérien.Feyerabend, Against Method, 1975. Anarchisme épistémologique. Feyerabend tente de montrer qu’il n’y a aucune méthode infaillible en science et, qu’ainsi, toutes les méthodes se valent (“Anything goes”). On peut véritablement dire que Kuhn a ouvert la porte à ce genre de texte en grande rupture avec la soi-disant pureté intellectuelle de la philosophie des sciences dominante de la première moitié du 20è siècle. Episode is LivePublished: Nov. 04, 2020 @ 5PM EditUnpublishAdd a TranscriptGet episode better indexed by search engines.Add Chapter MarkersListeners can tap through & see what’s coming up.Create a Visual SoundbiteBest way to share to social media for engagement.Share Episode OnFacebookTwitter

Tous les dimanches, de 9h à 13h, Néo Géo Nova vous invite à vivre de nouvelles immersions dominicales au sein de l'actualité culturelle et sociale de la planète. Un tour de la sono mondiale en 240 minutes, présenté par Bintou Simporé et le Worldcrew de Nova.Au programme : portrait du jour, nouveautés musicales, revue culturelle d'ici et d'ailleurs, bons plans, sessions live et Worldmix, sans oublier les invités, musiciens, écrivains et autres acteurs et créatrices culturels de notre « Tout-Monde ».Le Portrait Jeanne Lacaille nous présente Lottie Cunningham, avocate, activiste, qui lutte pour que son peuple, les Miskitos du Nicaragua, puissent disposer de leurs terres et de leurs ressources. En 2019, Lottie Cunningham reçoit le prix Paul K. Feyerabend qui récompense celles et ceux qui ont apporté « un changement crucial et durable en faveur de la solidarité communautaire », et aujourd’hui du Right Livelihoods Award – le « prix Nobel alternatif » qui honore et soutient les personnes courageuses qui résolvent les problèmes à échelle mondiale.Musikactu Nous vous emmenons en Inde, aux abords de New Delhi, où des agriculteurs du Pendjab en colère font sonner la bhangra music du mécontentement.Leur colère trouve sa source dans un texte de loi, adopté en septembre dernier, qui réforme l’agriculture en la libéralisant, mettant en danger l’avenir des exploitants de terres agricoles.Un des groupes phares du soutien à ce mouvement revendicatif, Harf Cheema & Kanwar Grewald, vient de publier un nouveau morceau, « Jawani Zindabad » qui pousse la jeune génération à rejoindre la lutte. Puis nous écoutons la première sortie prometteuse de Priya Ragu, une suissesse d’origine tamoul qui, à 34 ans, propose un son r&b-soul aussi apaisant qu’entraînant. D'ici et d'ailleurs 1960-2020, 60 ans d’indépendance pour 17 pays Africains, racontés par la musique live, les contes et les tables rondes, lors du festivalAfricolor qui fête 31 années d’existence avec une édition virtuelle qui s’invite sur vos écrans. Au micro de Bintou Simporé, Sébastien Lagrave directeur du festival revient sur cette édition particulière et sur la soirée du 19 décembre, qui réunit 6 villes d’Afrique, représentées par autant de Djs. Une nuit digitale composée d’interviews et de mix, à suivre de 17h à 01h, qui nous donnera un avant-goût de la Saison Africa 2020 à venir. Vous avez un message...Direction la Martinique, entendue à travers une carte postale sonore de Véronique Kanor, qui nous narre les préparatifs des fêtes de fin d’années sur l’île. De son côté, Véronique Kanor continue d’organiser ses ateliers d’écritures en plein air, elle vient aussi de publier un nouveau recueil de prose poétique, « Éclaboussures » publié chezÉditions Présence Africaine, et elle profite de l’occasion pour nous glisser un message poétique, que l’on peut retrouver dans les rames du métro parisien, dans le cadre de l’opération « Mondes créoles ». Néo Géo De Visu À l’occasion des un an de laFondation pour la Mémoire de l’esclavage, des poèmes des mondes créoles dans toute... See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Still reading Alan Chalmer's 'What is this thing called science' to talk more substance about the philosophy of science. I focus on some of the most influential theories that try to encompass a unviersal standard (or lack thereof) for how science is conducted, along with its strongest advocates. That includes positivism, inductivism, Karl Popper's falsificationism, Thomas Kuhn's paradigms, Lakatos's research programs and Feyerabend's anarchistic theory of science. Pheewww I know that's a lot. Think of this as a crash course of the philosophy of science that you never asked for!

Dans cet épisode 7.2., nous continuons notre discussion sur "La structure des révolutions scientifiques" de Thomas Kuhn. Nous apprenons enfin quelles sont les thèses de cette oeuvre célèbre.En 1962, Thomas Kuhn, un physicien se convertit en philosophe et historien des sciences avec la publication de The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, oeuvre majeure en philosophie des sciences dans laquelle il introduit les idées de progrès révolutionnaire, de paradigm shift (changement de paradigme) et bien plus. Pour faire un mauvais jeu de mots, ce livre qui porte sur les révolutions est lui-même toute une révolution!Programme en 4 parties:Background et histoireLe schéma kuhnien du progrès historique de la scienceLes nouveautés kuhniennes apportées à la philo des sciencesCritiques de Kuhn. Les révolutions scientifiques ont-elles lieu en sciences humaines?ENVOYEZ-NOUS VOS COMMENTAIRES, QUESTIONS ET SUGGESTIONSYoutube: Dialogues Dilettantes (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7IL0WJ1TAkUsNTfl3YUxQQ)ERRATUMRienPOUR POUSSER VOS LECTURESKuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (en allemand; Popper le réécrit en anglais en 1959). Texte classique. Très influent aujourd’hui et lors de la publication de The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, une lecture suffira à vous convaincre du gouffre énorme entre Kuhn et ses contemporains.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, 1965 Les travaux d’un colloque tenu en 1965 à Londres où s’opposent directement Kuhn et Popper. Vous y trouverez l’article de Margaret Masterman que nous mentionnons. Aussi, Imre Lakatos offre une version bonifiée du falsificationnisme poppérien.Feyerabend, Against Method, 1975. Anarchisme épistémologique. Feyerabend tente de montrer qu’il n’y a aucune méthode infaillible en science et, qu’ainsi, toutes les méthodes se valent (“Anything goes”). On peut véritablement dire que Kuhn a ouvert la porte à ce genre de texte en grande rupture avec la soi-disant pureté intellectuelle de la philosophie des sciences dominante de la première moitié du 20è siècle.

We talk with our buddy Gouff, whom we met at the beginning of the pandemic. Gouff writes for an online journal called Fǎn (反) on Medium. In this episode, we talk about the concept of fictitious science, a notion which challenges the allegation that a boundary exists between the literary and the literal. We also confront the (faulty) assertion that philosophy no longer plays a role in the domain of science. Furthermore, we attempt to apply some of the claims of fictitious science to a reading of Isaac Asimov's "The Last Question". Figures in the discussion include Deleuze, Quine, Putnam, Feyerabend, William James, Richard Dawkins, and Neil deGrasse Tyson. You can find Gouff's article here: https://medium.com/fan-publication/theses-on-fictitious-science-c607c925ed58

En 1962, Thomas Kuhn, un physicien se convertit en philosophe et historien des sciences avec la publication de The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, oeuvre majeure en philosophie des sciences dans laquelle il introduit les idées de progrès révolutionnaire, de paradigm shift (changement de paradigme) et bien plus. Pour faire un mauvais jeu de mots, ce livre qui porte sur les révolutions est lui-même toute une révolution!Programme en 4 parties:Background et histoireLe schéma kuhnien du progrès historique de la scienceLes nouveautés kuhniennes apportées à la philo des sciencesCritiques de Kuhn. Les révolutions scientifiques ont-elles lieu en sciences humaines?ENVOYEZ-NOUS VOS COMMENTAIRES, QUESTIONS ET SUGGESTIONSYoutube: Dialogues Dilettantes (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7IL0WJ1TAkUsNTfl3YUxQQ?view_as=subscriber)ERRATUMRienPOUR POUSSER VOS LECTURESKuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962. Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (en allemand; Popper le réécrit en anglais en 1959). Texte classique. Très influent aujourd’hui et lors de la publication de The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, une lecture suffira à vous convaincre du gouffre énorme entre Kuhn et ses contemporains.Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, 1965 Les travaux d’un colloque tenu en 1965 à Londres où s’opposent directement Kuhn et Popper. Vous y trouverez l’article de Margaret Masterman que nous mentionnons. Aussi, Imre Lakatos offre une version bonifiée du falsificationnisme poppérien.Feyerabend, Against Method, 1975. Anarchisme épistémologique. Feyerabend tente de montrer qu’il n’y a aucune méthode infaillible en science et, qu’ainsi, toutes les méthodes se valent (“Anything goes”). On peut véritablement dire que Kuhn a ouvert la porte à ce genre de texte en grande rupture avec la soi-disant pureté intellectuelle de la philosophie des sciences dominante de la première moitié du 20è siècle.

Suite de la discussion sur "Les Impostures Intellectuelles". Ici, nous parlons de la critique du relativisme cognitif des auteurs du livre.Clips0:00 - Qu’est ce que Dialogues Dilettantes?8:03 - Relativisme cognitif et postmodernisme dans le monde académique- Thèse de Duhem-Quine corrigéeEnvoyez-nous vos questions, commentaires et suggestionsYoutube: Dialogues Dilettantes (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7IL0WJ1TAkUsNTfl3YUxQQ?view_as=subscriber)ErratumÀ 16:14, Justitin mentionne la thèse de Duhem-Quine. Des précisions sont apportées.Pour pousser vos lecturesKuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962. Le texte de Kuhn est un incontournable en philo des sciences du XXè siècle. Très bon livre qui remet en question plusieurs acquis de la philo des sciences mais qui aussi, malheureusement selon Eliot et Justin, a ouvert la porte à plusieurs courants relativistes en science.Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (en allemand; Popper le réécrit en anglais en 1959). Texte classique qui renverse le positivisme logique et qui est abordé brièvement par Sokal et Bricmont. Popper est un amoureux de la rationalité et est très critique envers toute forme de relativisme. Feyerabend, Against Method, 1975. Anarchisme épistémologique. Feyerabend tente de montrer qu’il n’y a aucune méthode infaillible en science et, qu’ainsi, toutes les méthodes se valent (“Anything goes”). Il est critiqué par Sokal et Bricmont.Duhem, La théorie physique: son objet et sa structure, 1906. Première présentation d’une thèse dite de holisme épistémologique. Quine reprend plus tard cette pensée (quoique différement) et aujourd’hui nous nommons cette thèse celle de Duhem-Quine. Sokal et Bricmont l’aborde aussi.Hume, An Enquiry Into Human Understanding, 1748. Un livre classique moderne de scepticisme métaphysique. Entre autres, Hume montre que la méthode dite d’induction en science ainsi que le principe de causalité sont des postulats métaphysiques qui demeureront à jamais non-prouvables. C’est aussi un texte fondateur de l’empirisme moderne. Son influence est énorme même aujourd’hui.

En 1996, éclate l’affaire Sokal: Alan Sokal, un mathématicien et physicien américain publie un texte intitulé : Transgressing the Boundaries : Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity(1), dans la revue américaine Social Text(2). Hélas! Sokal avoue que ce qui est écrit est pur non-sens: il cherchait en fait à montrer l’irrationalité qui, selon lui, vit au coeur de certains cercles académiques américains. En 1997, Sokal et son collègue physicien et philosophe des sciences, Jean Bricmont, publient ensemble le livre Les Impostures Intellectuelles3,4. Dans ce dernier, les auteurs critiquent vivement Jacques Lacan, Julia Kristeva, Luce Irigaray, Bruno Latour, Jean Baudrillard, Gilles Deleuze, Félix Guattari et Paul Virilio, penseurs plus ou moins éminents en philosophie, littérature et sciences humaines, que l’on pourrait qualifiés de “postmodernes”.Nous, Eliot et Justin, adresserons certaines de ces critiques et discuterons ensemble de science et de rationalité. Nous ne pouvions nous empêcher de rire parfois! ENVOYEZ-NOUS VOS QUESTIONS, COMMENTAIRES, SUGGESTIONSYoutube: Dialogues Dilettantes (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7IL0WJ1TAkUsNTfl3YUxQQ?view_as=subscriber)ERRATUMRien iciPOUR POUSSER VOS LECTURESKuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 1962. Le texte de Kuhn est un incontournable en philo des sciences du XXè siècle. Très bon livre qui remet en question plusieurs acquis de la philo des sciences mais qui aussi, malheureusement selon Eliot et Justin, a ouvert la porte à plusieurs courants relativistes en science.Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, 1934 (en allemand; Popper le réécrit en anglais en 1959). Texte classique qui renverse le positivisme logique et qui est abordé brièvement par Sokal et Bricmont. Popper est un amoureux de la rationalité et est très critique envers toute forme de relativisme. Feyerabend, Against Method, 1975. Anarchisme épistémologique. Feyerabend tente de montrer qu’il n’y a aucune méthode infaillible en science et, qu’ainsi, toutes les méthodes se valent (“Anything goes”). Il est critiqué par Sokal et Bricmont.Duhem, La théorie physique: son objet et sa structure, 1906. Première présentation d’une thèse dite de holisme épistémologique. Quine reprend plus tard cette pensée (quoique différement) et aujourd’hui nous nommons cette thèse celle de Duhem-Quine. Sokal et Bricmont l’aborde aussi.Hume, An Enquiry Into Human Understanding, 1748. Un livre classique moderne de scepticisme métaphysique. Entre autres, Hume montre que la méthode dite d’induction en science ainsi que le principe de causalité sont des postulats métaphysiques qui demeureront à jamais non-prouvables. C’est aussi un texte fondateur de l’empirisme moderne. Son influence est énorme même aujourd’hui. NOTES1Transgressing the Boundaries : Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity https://physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html 2https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Text3Alan Sokal et Jean Bricmont, Les Impostures Intellectuelles, Odile Jacob, 1997, 276p.4https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impostures_intellectuelles

On this episode of IFA, former FCHS athlete and current baseball coach Ryan Feyerabend joins us to discuss the Franklin baseball program, his time playing sports in high school and college and why all of our athletic shortcomings can be blamed on Webb Elementary School's tile gym floor.

Il mio nuovo videocorso sul podcasting ➤➤➤ https://www.docety.com/videocorso/107/dettagliMike Hughes era un terrapiattista ed è morto nel tentativo di verificare di persona la curvatura dell'orizzonte. Oggi vorrei parlarvi di quello che possiamo imparare da questo... idiota. Prossimi eventi ➤➤➤ https://riccardodalferro.com/eventi/ Newsletter: http://eepurl.com/c-LKfz Elogio dell'idiozia ➤➤➤ https://amzn.to/2J9WwKZ Contro il metodo, Feyerabend ➤➤➤ https://amzn.to/2unaBOGLEGGI "SPINOZA&POPCORN" ➤➤➤ https://amzn.to/32LY9DK(versione ebook: https://amzn.to/2xSsoOD) Youtube: http://bit.ly/rickdufer Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rickdufer/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rickdalferro/ Il meglio di Daily Cogito (per nuovi ascoltatori): http://bit.ly/bestofDC Daily Cogito: ogni mattina alle 7. L'unica dipendenza che ti rende indipendente. Daily Cogito è ascoltabile e scaricabile dalle seguenti fonti:Canale Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/dailycogitoSpotify: http://bit.ly/DailySpoty iTunes: http://bit.ly/dailytunes

Ömer Faik Anlı ve Tansel Erdem Yılmaz'ın ses verdiği Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 80. bölümü karşınızda: Bilim ve Batı Aynı Şey mi ya da 'Kadim' Olan Her Şey Bilgi mi?Artık bölümlerimiz görüntülü olarak YouTube kanalımızda! Bizi Twitter'da gayrisafikirler adıyla takip edebilirsiniz. Ayrıca iTunes üzerinden yorumlayabilir, ekşisözlük üzerinde entrylerle tanımlayabilir ve gayrisafifikirler@gmail.com'dan bir sonraki bölümlerimizde incelememiz icin sorularınızla baş başa bırakabilirsiniz.Gayrisafi Fikirler'in yeni bölümleri birer hafta arayla salı günleri bilim felsefesinin en popüler haliyle cebinizde!

Ömer Faik Anlı ve Tansel Erdem Yılmaz'ın ses verdiği Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 80. bölümü karşınızda: Bilim ve Batı Aynı Şey mi ya da 'Kadim' Olan Her Şey Bilgi mi?Artık bölümlerimiz görüntülü olarak YouTube kanalımızda! Bizi Twitter'da gayrisafikirler adıyla takip edebilirsiniz. Ayrıca iTunes üzerinden yorumlayabilir, ekşisözlük üzerinde entrylerle tanımlayabilir ve gayrisafifikirler@gmail.com'dan bir sonraki bölümlerimizde incelememiz icin sorularınızla baş başa bırakabilirsiniz.Gayrisafi Fikirler'in yeni bölümleri birer hafta arayla salı günleri bilim felsefesinin en popüler haliyle cebinizde!

In this episode, Jeremy goes over the social construction of history and how it affects the way people perceive their place, how nations form identities, and how history has become inherently white supremacist.  If you haven't already, go to www.prolespod.com or you can help the show improve over at www.patreon.com/prolespod and in return can get access to our spicy discord, exclusive episodes, guest appearances, etc.! All kinds of great stuff. Please subscribe on your favorite podcast apps and rate or review to help extend our reach. Like and rate our facebook page at facebook.com/prolespod and follow us on Twitter @prolespod. If you have any questions or comments, DM us on either of those platforms or email us at prolespod@gmail.com All episodes prior to episode 4 can be found on YouTube, so go check that out as well! Suggested Reading:  Arenas, Iraida V. (1995). "The Perception of History and Archaeology in Latin America." Making Alternative Histories. Edited by Peter R. Schmidt and Thomas C. Patterson. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press. Arnold, Bettina. (2006). "'Arierdämmerung': Race and Archaeology in Nazi Germany." World Archaeology, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 8-31. Bateson, Gregory. (2000a). "Culture Contact and Schismogenesis." Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ---. (2000b). "Cybernetic Explanation." Steps to an Ecology of Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clifford, James. (1986). Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography. Edited by James Clifford and George E. Marcus. Berkeley: University of California Press. Coates, Ta-Nehisi. (1993). "The Myth of Western Civilization." The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/12/the-myth-of-western-civilization/282704/. de Certeau, Michel. (1986). "History: Science and Fiction." Heterologies: Discourse on the Other. Translated by Brian Massumi.  Manchester: Manchester University Press. Feyerabend, Paul. (1993). Against Method. New York: Verso. Foucault, Michel. (1984a). "Nietzsche, Genealogy, History." The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books. ---. (1984b). "What is an Author?" The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow. New York: Pantheon Books. Hanagan, Nora. “From Agrarian Dreams to Democratic Realities: A Deweyan Alternative to Jeffersonian Food Politics.” Political Research Quarterly, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 34-45, https://www-jstor-org.libproxy.uccs.edu/stable/24371970. Hatch, Thom. (2004). Black Kettle: The Cheyenne Chief Who Sought Peace but found War.  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hobsbawm, Eric. (1993). The Invention of Tradition. Edited by Eric Hobsbawm, and Terrence Ranger. Cambridge: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge. Mallory, J. P. (2013) The Origins of the Irish. London: Thames & Hudson. Minor, Heather H. (1999). "Mapping Mussolini: Ritual and Cartography in Public Art during the Second Roman Empire." Imago Mundi, vol. 51, no. 1, pp. 147-162, doi:10.1080/03085699908592907. Nelis, Jan. (2014). "Back to the Future." Fascism, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 1-19, doi://doi.org/10.1163/22116257-00301001. Paidipaty, P. (2010). Tribal Nations: Politics and the Making of Anthropology in India, 1874-1967 (Doctoral dissertation, Columbia University). Schmidt, Peter R., and Thomas C. Patterson. (1995). Making Alternative Histories. Edited by Peter R. Schmidt and Thomas C. Patterson. School of American Santa Fe: Research Press. Thomas, David H. (2000). Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity. New York: Basic Books. Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. (1995). Silencing the Past. Boston: Beacon Press. Turner, Frederick J. (2009) "The Significance of the Frontier in American History." American Studies at the University of Virginia, http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/turner/chapter1.html. Whitman, James Q. (2017). Hitler's American Model. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Winkler, Martin M. (2009). The Roman Salute: Cinema, History, Ideology.  Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, https://muse-jhu-edu.libproxy.uccs.edu/book/27815. Wolfe, Eric R. (1982). Europe and the People without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. Intro music:  "Proles Pod Theme" by Ransom Notes Outro music: "Days Like These" by Billy Bragg

#AnnetteRadüg #MenschenBeiAnnette #AndreasFeyerabend #Psychotherapeut #HeilungMitTieren #TiereInKrankenhäusern

Episode summary During this episode, we will be talking to the team of Radi Cards, a dapp that allows you to send NFT e-cards / post cards along with custom messages, ETH and DAI. Over the periods of Christmas and Chinese New Year, over 850+ NFTs post cards were gifted through Radi Cards. We dive into what they managed to engage the community with their project, what worked well with user activation and what didn't. Episode notes Radi Cards website: https://radi.cards/ Lili Feyerabend's twitter: https://twitter.com/lililashka Chris Maree's twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisMaree__ Portis: https://www.portis.io/ Wizard of dapps Twitter: https://twitter.com/wizardofdapps Website: https://wizardofdapps.fm Telegram group: https://t.me/WizardOfDapps

La conoscenza non è lineare né teleologica: la conoscenza è anarchica, funziona se motivata dalla curiosità e non dalla saggezza, procede per tentativi e trivellazioni e non per scopi ed obiettivi, ma soprattutto è una scommessa coraggiosa con se stessi. Proviamo a ragionare insieme su questi importanti concetti! VOTA FILOSOFARSOGOOD AGLI OSCAR! ➽ https://www.macchianera.net/2018/09/18/mia18vota/ Acquista il mio libro ➽ https://amzn.to/2J9WwKZ (ebook: https://amzn.to/2xSsoOD) Tutti i prossimi eventi ➽ https://riccardodalferro.com/eventi/ I TESTI CITATI Feyerabend, "Contro il metodo": https://amzn.to/2JCx7X2 Calvino, "Le Cosmicomiche": https://amzn.to/2JD52Pt Taleb, "Antifragile": https://amzn.to/2SHPZIe Schopenhauer, "La filosofia delle università": https://amzn.to/2PFv7Tt Nietzsche, "Sull'utilità e il danno della storia per la vita": https://amzn.to/2OnWcG8 IL MIO PODCAST QUOTIDIANO "DAILY COGITO" ➽ https://www.spreaker.com/show/daily-cogito SOCIAL IL MIO CANALE YOUTUBE: http://bit.ly/rickdufer IL MIO CANALE TELEGRAM: http://bit.ly/DuFerTelegram LA MIA PAGINA FACEBOOK: http://bit.ly/duferfb IL MIO ACCOUNT INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/rickdufer/ IL MIO TWITTER: https://twitter.com/RickDuFer IL MIO PROFILO LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/riccardo-dal-ferro/31/845/b14 IL MIO SITO: http://riccardodalferro.com/FiloSoFarSoGood è anche su Spotify: http://bit.ly/FiloSpoty iTunes: http://bit.ly/FilosoTunes Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/dailycogito

La conoscenza non è lineare né teleologica: la conoscenza è anarchica, funziona se motivata dalla curiosità e non dalla saggezza, procede per tentativi e trivellazioni e non per scopi ed obiettivi, ma soprattutto è una scommessa coraggiosa con se stessi. Proviamo a ragionare insieme su questi importanti concetti! VOTA FILOSOFARSOGOOD AGLI OSCAR! ➽ https://www.macchianera.net/2018/09/18/mia18vota/ Acquista il mio libro ➽ https://amzn.to/2J9WwKZ (ebook: https://amzn.to/2xSsoOD) Tutti i prossimi eventi ➽ https://riccardodalferro.com/eventi/ I TESTI CITATI Feyerabend, "Contro il metodo": https://amzn.to/2JCx7X2 Calvino, "Le Cosmicomiche": https://amzn.to/2JD52Pt Taleb, "Antifragile": https://amzn.to/2SHPZIe Schopenhauer, "La filosofia delle università": https://amzn.to/2PFv7Tt Nietzsche, "Sull'utilità e il danno della storia per la vita": https://amzn.to/2OnWcG8 IL MIO PODCAST QUOTIDIANO "DAILY COGITO" ➽ https://www.spreaker.com/show/daily-cogito SOCIAL IL MIO CANALE YOUTUBE: http://bit.ly/rickdufer IL MIO CANALE TELEGRAM: http://bit.ly/DuFerTelegram LA MIA PAGINA FACEBOOK: http://bit.ly/duferfb IL MIO ACCOUNT INSTAGRAM: https://instagram.com/rickdufer/ IL MIO TWITTER: https://twitter.com/RickDuFer IL MIO PROFILO LINKEDIN: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/riccardo-dal-ferro/31/845/b14 IL MIO SITO: http://riccardodalferro.com/FiloSoFarSoGood è anche su Spotify: http://bit.ly/FiloSpoty iTunes: http://bit.ly/FilosoTunes Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/c/dailycogito

Peter Achinstein (Johns Hopkins Univ. Baltimore) gives a talk at the Workshop on "Why trust a Theory?" (7-9 December, 2015) titled "Scientific Speculation". Abstract: Throughout the history of science controversies have emerged regarding the legitimacy of speculating in science. Three very strong views about the general practice of speculating have emerged: One, very conservative, says “never do it, or at least never publish it.” It is the official doctrine of Isaac Newton: “hypotheses have no place in experimental philosophy.” (Of course, he violated his official doctrine on several occasions). Another, more moderate position is the official doctrine of hypothetico-deductivists such as Whewell, Popper, and Hempel: speculate freely but verify before publishing. The third, the most liberal, is suggested by Feyerabend’s principle of proliferation: speculate like mad, and publish, even when you have no idea how to test your speculations. In my talk I want to reject all three of these views. They are too simple-minded. Some speculations are good ones, some not so good. I will ask how a speculation is to be evaluated. In the process of doing so, I will consider two historically important speculations: James Clerk Maxwell’s kinetic theory speculations from 1860 to 1875, and a speculation that has been put forward by some string theorists, as well as by others, viz. that there is a “theory of everything” (whether or not it is string theory). The first, I will argue, deserves praise, the second does not.

Ömer Faik Anlı ve Tansel Erdem Yılmaz'ın ses verdiği Hayatın Denklemlerinde Bilim Teorisi, Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 20. bölümünde Paul Feyerabend'in olağanın dışına taşan fikirlerine kulak vermeye devam ettik. Postmodernizmin sınırlarında yürürken Feyerabend'i de yanımıza alarak onun tanımladığı ve 'bilim' payesiyle sorgulanamaz iktidara sahip güçleri sorguladık.

Ömer Faik Anlı ve Tansel Erdem Yılmaz'ın ses verdiği Hayatın Denklemlerinde Bilim Teorisi, Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 20. bölümünde Paul Feyerabend'in olağanın dışına taşan fikirlerine kulak vermeye devam ettik. Postmodernizmin sınırlarında yürürken Feyerabend'i de yanımıza alarak onun tanımladığı ve 'bilim' payesiyle sorgulanamaz iktidara sahip güçleri sorguladık.

Ömer Faik Anlı ve Tansel Erdem Yılmaz'ın ses verdiği Hayatın Denklemlerinde Bilim Teorisi, Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 19. bölümünde Paul Feyerabend ve anarşizminin sınırlarını keşfetmeye çaba gösterdik ve sorduk: Bilime alternatif olan diğer bilgi arayışlarını serbest bırakmak evrim sürecinin işleyişini çalıştırma anlamına mı gelir?

Ömer Faik Anlı ve Tansel Erdem Yılmaz'ın ses verdiği Hayatın Denklemlerinde Bilim Teorisi, Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 19. bölümünde Paul Feyerabend ve anarşizminin sınırlarını keşfetmeye çaba gösterdik ve sorduk: Bilime alternatif olan diğer bilgi arayışlarını serbest bırakmak evrim sürecinin işleyişini çalıştırma anlamına mı gelir?

Ömer Faik Anlı ve Tansel Erdem Yılmaz'ın ses verdiği Hayatın Denklemlerinde Bilim Teorisi, Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 18. bölümü, Thomas Kuhn'u anlamaya yeltendiğimiz serinin son kısmında paradigma eksenindeki bilim anlayışına bilimin anarşiye bakan yüzü Paul Feyerabend cephesinden gelen eleştirilere değindik.

Ömer Faik Anlı ve Tansel Erdem Yılmaz'ın ses verdiği Hayatın Denklemlerinde Bilim Teorisi, Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 18. bölümü, Thomas Kuhn'u anlamaya yeltendiğimiz serinin son kısmında paradigma eksenindeki bilim anlayışına bilimin anarşiye bakan yüzü Paul Feyerabend cephesinden gelen eleştirilere değindik.

McKenzie Wark’s new book begins and ends with a playful call: “Workings of the world untie! You have a win to world!” Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene (Verso, 2015) creates a conversation between work from two very different Soviet and American contexts. After guiding readers through the work and theories of Alexander Bogdanov, whose focus on the importance of labor in organizing knowledge forms a central thread through the book as a whole, Wark traces some of those notions in the writing of novelist and utopian Andrey Platonov. The second half of the book extends the conversation into science studies, beginning in a chapter that considers the work of Feyerabend, Haraway, Barad, and Edwards in light of Bogdanov and Platonov’s approaches to labor and knowledge, and continuing into a chapter devoted to Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy. The result is a fascinating treatment of the centrality of labor and the importance of the not-necessarily-human to understanding and theorizing the Anthropocene. (As Wark reminds us, Labor is the mingling of many things, most of them not human.) The entire book is highly recommended, and for the STS-minded among us the third chapter of the book would make an especially useful assignment in a discussion group or seminar devoted to contemporary theory and/in STS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

McKenzie Wark’s new book begins and ends with a playful call: “Workings of the world untie! You have a win to world!” Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene (Verso, 2015) creates a conversation between work from two very different Soviet and American contexts. After guiding readers through the work and theories of Alexander Bogdanov, whose focus on the importance of labor in organizing knowledge forms a central thread through the book as a whole, Wark traces some of those notions in the writing of novelist and utopian Andrey Platonov. The second half of the book extends the conversation into science studies, beginning in a chapter that considers the work of Feyerabend, Haraway, Barad, and Edwards in light of Bogdanov and Platonov’s approaches to labor and knowledge, and continuing into a chapter devoted to Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy. The result is a fascinating treatment of the centrality of labor and the importance of the not-necessarily-human to understanding and theorizing the Anthropocene. (As Wark reminds us, Labor is the mingling of many things, most of them not human.) The entire book is highly recommended, and for the STS-minded among us the third chapter of the book would make an especially useful assignment in a discussion group or seminar devoted to contemporary theory and/in STS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

McKenzie Wark’s new book begins and ends with a playful call: “Workings of the world untie! You have a win to world!” Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene (Verso, 2015) creates a conversation between work from two very different Soviet and American contexts. After guiding readers through the work and theories of Alexander Bogdanov, whose focus on the importance of labor in organizing knowledge forms a central thread through the book as a whole, Wark traces some of those notions in the writing of novelist and utopian Andrey Platonov. The second half of the book extends the conversation into science studies, beginning in a chapter that considers the work of Feyerabend, Haraway, Barad, and Edwards in light of Bogdanov and Platonov’s approaches to labor and knowledge, and continuing into a chapter devoted to Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy. The result is a fascinating treatment of the centrality of labor and the importance of the not-necessarily-human to understanding and theorizing the Anthropocene. (As Wark reminds us, Labor is the mingling of many things, most of them not human.) The entire book is highly recommended, and for the STS-minded among us the third chapter of the book would make an especially useful assignment in a discussion group or seminar devoted to contemporary theory and/in STS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

McKenzie Wark’s new book begins and ends with a playful call: “Workings of the world untie! You have a win to world!” Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene (Verso, 2015) creates a conversation between work from two very different Soviet and American contexts. After guiding readers through the work and theories of Alexander Bogdanov, whose focus on the importance of labor in organizing knowledge forms a central thread through the book as a whole, Wark traces some of those notions in the writing of novelist and utopian Andrey Platonov. The second half of the book extends the conversation into science studies, beginning in a chapter that considers the work of Feyerabend, Haraway, Barad, and Edwards in light of Bogdanov and Platonov’s approaches to labor and knowledge, and continuing into a chapter devoted to Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy. The result is a fascinating treatment of the centrality of labor and the importance of the not-necessarily-human to understanding and theorizing the Anthropocene. (As Wark reminds us, Labor is the mingling of many things, most of them not human.) The entire book is highly recommended, and for the STS-minded among us the third chapter of the book would make an especially useful assignment in a discussion group or seminar devoted to contemporary theory and/in STS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

McKenzie Wark’s new book begins and ends with a playful call: “Workings of the world untie! You have a win to world!” Molecular Red: Theory for the Anthropocene (Verso, 2015) creates a conversation between work from two very different Soviet and American contexts. After guiding readers through the work and theories of Alexander Bogdanov, whose focus on the importance of labor in organizing knowledge forms a central thread through the book as a whole, Wark traces some of those notions in the writing of novelist and utopian Andrey Platonov. The second half of the book extends the conversation into science studies, beginning in a chapter that considers the work of Feyerabend, Haraway, Barad, and Edwards in light of Bogdanov and Platonov’s approaches to labor and knowledge, and continuing into a chapter devoted to Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars Trilogy. The result is a fascinating treatment of the centrality of labor and the importance of the not-necessarily-human to understanding and theorizing the Anthropocene. (As Wark reminds us, Labor is the mingling of many things, most of them not human.) The entire book is highly recommended, and for the STS-minded among us the third chapter of the book would make an especially useful assignment in a discussion group or seminar devoted to contemporary theory and/in STS. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Brian Regan and Danny Lobell sit down and discuss philosophy from Paul Feyerabend. Because Brian has a history of going against the grain of the world. He is clean in an industry that is known for being dirty. He dropped out of college and completed it later. He released a special completely live. All things not many people can do, Alex picked a philosopher who talked about thinking outside the box in science. The conversation also covers comedy talk and Brian's life outside of showbiz. This episode is brought to you by Stand Up! Records.

Is kennis van de filosofie noodzakelijk voor wetenschappers? Zijn de theorieën van Thomas Kuhn en van Paul Feyerabend geen dooddoeners voor het skepticisme? Wat zeggen Kuhn en Feyerabend eigenlijk? DitLees meerInterview met Johan Braeckman (2)

Is wetenschap bestand tegen de postmoderne kritiek? Wat hebben filosofen als Popper, Kuhn en Feyerabend hierover te zeggen? Gooit de stelling van Gödel geen roet in het eten? Is hetLees meerGeschiedenis van de skeptische filosofie (2)

Fri, 1 Jan 1571 12:00:00 +0100 http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12322/ http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/12322/1/4Theol.2495a.pdf Walther, Christoph Walther, Christoph: Antwort Auff Sigmund Feyerabends und seiner Mitgeselschafft falsches angeben und Luegen so in nehest vergangener Herbst Messe des 1570. Jars zu Franckford am Meien ist ausgangen. Daraus ... zusehen wie Feyerabend alle Biblien auch die vor 36. jaren zu Wittemberg gedruckt ..