Podcast appearances and mentions of Paul Feyerabend

MAKE HISTORY WITH US THIS SUMMER:https://demystifysci.com/demysticon-2025PATREON https://www.patreon.com/c/demystifysciPARADIGM DRIFThttps://demystifysci.com/paradigm-drift-showPATREON: get episodes early + join our weekly Patron Chat https://bit.ly/3lcAasBMERCH: Rock some DemystifySci gear : https://demystifysci.myspreadshop.com/allAMAZON: Do your shopping through this link: https://amzn.to/3YyoT98SUBSTACK: https://substack.com/@UCqV4_7i9h1_V7hY48eZZSLw@demystifysciJim Keller is on of the all-time great computer architects who has shaped the tech revolution during his tenure at Digital Equipment Corporation, AMD, Tesla, Intel, AMD and Apple. In addition to being a crack engineer, Keller is also deeply curious about the inner workings of nature on all scales, and is the patron for our upcoming Beyond the Big Bang meeting in Portugal. Keller is a big proponent of what philosopher Paul Feyerabend called “scientific anarchy,” where progress requires us to abandon a prescriptive approach to what counts as “science,” because many contradictory theories can be “true” at once. We build on our previous conversation about the nature of institutions to unpack why the Big Bang is about to fall apart, what it takes to build a new theory, and how to create a lasting impact without striving explicitly for immortality. (00:00) Go! (00:04:07) Skepticism in Scientific Models and the Role of Physical Intuition(00:11:26) The Evolution of Physics and Cognitive Sciences(00:18:07) Challenges in Conventional Cosmic and Solar Models(00:22:10 )Evolution of Computer Architecture(00:24:02) The Utilitarian Approach of Engineers(00:28:12) Debugging in Engineering(00:30:32) Reevaluating Scientific Paradigms(00:34:00) Collaborative Dynamics in Science and Engineering(00:37:13) The Influence of Paradigms on Scientific Discourse(00:44:42) Musician's Journey and Archetypes(00:45:37) Belief Systems and Shared Realities(00:49:59) The Bible and Mythology(01:00:17) Sci-Fi, Technology, and Societal Impact(01:02:31) Religious Beliefs and Cultural Diversity(01:07:53) Cultural Beliefs and Alignment(01:10:50) Alignment vs. Experimentation(01:13:23) Decentralization and Experimentation(01:15:00) Individual Experience in Religion(01:18:10) Mythology and Technology(01:21:14) Scarcity and Human Behavior(01:23:04) Complexity in Human Systems(01:33:47) Human Collaboration and Motivation(01:36:16) Public Speaking and Leadership Dynamics(01:39:51) Stability and Change in Systems(01:43:52) Paradigm Drifts (01:49:02) Geopolitical Structures and Exploration(01:53:37) Political Power Dynamics(01:57:05) Critique of Power Structures(02:08:45) Paradigm Shifts(02:14:44) Mission-Driven Success(02:18:04) Authenticity in Art#TechVisionary, #AIInnovation, #TechnologyLeader, #TechVisionary, #TechGuru, #astrophysics, #engineeringlife, #cosmos, #innovations, #technews, #codinglife , #programminglife , #techindustry , #engineeringlife, #philosophypodcast, #sciencepodcast, #longformpodcastCheck our short-films channel, @DemystifySci: https://www.youtube.com/c/DemystifyingScience AND our material science investigations of atomics, @MaterialAtomics https://www.youtube.com/@MaterialAtomicsJoin 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. SOCIAL: - Discord: https://discord.gg/MJzKT8CQub- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/DemystifySci- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/DemystifySci/- Twitter: https://twitter.com/DemystifySciMUSIC: -Shilo Delay: https://g.co/kgs/oty671

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

Susan Sontag, Theodor W. Adorno, Michel Foucault und Paul Feyerabend – vier mutige Geister als Beispiele für die Kraft philosophischen Denkens. Und wie es helfen kann, die Enge der Gegenwart zu überwinden.

Bienvenue dans le 41ème épisode de "Chez Kevin Razy". Avec mon pote sociologue Dr. Hamza, on se réunit pour parler de ce qui se passe dans la vie comme dans un groupe WhatsApp. Entre humour et sociologie, on ne s'interdit aucun sujet.Pour soutenir notre podcast :https://fr.tipeee.com/ckr-podcast/Rejoins notre canal Telegram :https://t.me/CKRnews▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ ON EN A PARLE ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬Livres :"Homo academicus" de Pierre Bourdieu : https://amzn.to/3AcISlk"Contre la méthode" de Paul Feyerabend : https://amzn.to/3WA2oQt"Qu'est-ce que croire" de Roger Pouivet : https://amzn.to/3LYCNM0 "Quest-ce que la science?" de Alan Chalmers : https://amzn.to/3WGoT6p"La France telle qu'elle est" de Laurent Mucchielli : https://amzn.to/4dB0J3P"Fake news: Évite de tomber dans le piège !" Kevin Razy, Hamza Garrush : https://amzn.to/3S9rOSz"ScienceFlix: Ce que tes séries préférées disent de notre société" Kevin Razy, Hamza Garrush, Aness Garrush : https://amzn.to/3u6fcnm▬▬▬▬▬▬ DANS CET EPISODE ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬On lit vos commentaires !Mise au point sur le thème du complotismeNews HMD : Les salariés de Duralex cartonnent depuis qu'ils sont les patronsLes primes aux JO selon David DouilletEmeutes racistes en AngleterreUn policier tueur à la cérémonie des JO ?Le peuple du Bangladesh chasse la 1ere ministreAlcool et chasseNo comment : Inspection du travail, RATP, Taxis volants, Jeux Olympiques, Israël, Smotrich, génocide. La France n'est pas une nation de sport▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬ LA TEAM ▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬Host : Kevin RazyGuest: Dr HamzaShowrunner : Mourad MoqaddemRéalisation & Montage : Gaëlle Cany Canian Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

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

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

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.

Miller, Simonewww.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Sein und Streit

Rehse-Knauf, Lucawww.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Sein und Streit

Miller, Simonewww.deutschlandfunkkultur.de, Sein und Streit

Mit seinem Slogan „anything goes“ festigte Paul Feyerabend sein Image als unbequemer Denker. Der österreichische Wissenschafts-Philosoph war ein eifriger Kritiker des etablierten Wissenschaftsbetriebs. Am 13.Januar 2024 wäre Paul Feyerabend 100 Jahre alt geworden, jetzt bereits ist ein Band mit neuen Texten von ihm herausgekommen: „Historische Wurzeln moderner Probleme“ ist ein spannendes Zeitdokument, aber auch erstaunlich aktuell. Herausgegeben von Michael Hagner und Michael Hampe Suhrkamp Verlag, 600 Seiten, 40 Euro ISBN 978-3-518-58805-5

The last in the series on collaborative circles. The creative roles in a collaborative circle, discussed with reference to both Christopher Alexander's forces and ideas from ecological and embodied cognition. Special emphasis on collaborative pairs.SourcesMichael P. Farrell, Collaborative Circles: Friendship Dynamics and Creative Work, 2001Louise Barrett, Beyond the Brain: How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds, 2011Anthony Chemero, Radical Embodied Cognitive Science, 2011MentionedEmily Dickinson, "A narrow Fellow in the Grass", 1891 (I think version 2 is the original. Dickinson's punctuation was idiosyncratic, but early editions of her poetry conventionalized it.)Talking Heads, "Psycho Killer", 1977Paul Karl Feyerabend, Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend, 1995Michael J. Reddy, "The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language", in A. Ortony (Ed.), Metaphor and Thought, 1979 (wikipedia article)Ken Thompson, "Reflections on Trusting Trust" (Turing Award lecture), 1984CreditsThe picture of the umbrella or rotary clothesline is due to Pinterest user MJ Po. Don't tell Dawn it's the episode image.

This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Jamie Shaw. They speak about the life, the work, and the specifically epistemological anarchism of Paul Feyerabend. Jamie Shaw is a Postdoctoral Fellow at The Institute of Philosophy at Leibniz University. He received his PhD from the University of Western Ontario for his dissertation ‘A Pluralism Worth Having: Feyerabend's Well-Ordered Science', and he is the editor of ‘Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Papers'. Cambridge University Press. *** Home – Jamie Shaw (wordpress.com) *** Amazon.com: Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays: 9781108471992: Bschir, Karim, Shaw, Jamie: Books   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  

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

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.

This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Donald Gillies. They speak about Donald's time at the London School of Economics, his personal and professional experiences with Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, the importance of an historical approach to philosophy, specifically how we should understand truth in medicine, and the history of medical discovery. In 1966 Donald Gillies became a graduate student in Karl Popper's department at LSE, doing a PhD with Imre Lakatos. Since then he has carried out research in the philosophy of science and mathematics broadly in the tradition of Popper, Lakatos and Kuhn, while being strongly influenced by Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein. He focussed much of his research on the philosophy of probability, which, with the invention of Bayesian nets etc, extended into causality. And then went on to work on the philosophy of AI, the philosophy of medicine, and in the application of history and philosophy of science to questions of research assessment and organisation. He is currently retired as Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Science and Mathematics at University College London. *** Donald Gillies' full biography and academic work can be found at: Donald A. Gillies – Personal Website (wordpress.com) 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

A ciência não tem todas as respostas: Progresso científico; Perguntas sem resposta: Paul Feyerabend e Thomas Kuhn --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/pedro-mendes-ju00fanior/message

Gayrisafi Fikirler'in 127. bölümü yayında. Bu bölümde neler konuştuk? - Elektrikli otomobillere olan tutkumuzun kaynağında geleceğe dair heveslerimiz mi var? - Elektirkli otomobiller doğaya sanıldığı kadar saygılı mı? - Toplu taşıma kullanımı ve Paul Feyerabend felsefesi arasında bağlantı nedir? Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This episode of the Popperian Podcast features an interview that Jed Lea-Henry conducted with Joseph Agassi. They speak about Joseph's background as a student of Karl Popper, his life and his philosophy, his interactions with people such as Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend, John Watkins, and Thomas Kuhn, and most importantly Joseph's criticisms of various aspects of their philosophy. Joseph Agassi is Emeritus Professor at Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, and York University, Toronto. He studied under Karl Popper at the London School of Economics and has authored over twenty books and 600 articles. His full resume and publications can be found at Prof. Joseph Agassi (tau.ac.il) *** The book we primarily speak about in this interview is The Gentle Art of Philosophical Polemics. Along with Joseph's other books it can be found at Books by Joseph Agassi | Book Depository   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

125 – Neceser Epistemológico – Entrevista Feyerabend - Parte 1 Haciendo gala del eclecticismo , faltamos una semana, pero así también le hacemos honra al pensador que viene a continuación, el bohemio, el transigente, el desordenado... Paul Feyerabend. 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

Vi har i mange tidligere episoder snakket om hva som er god forskning og vitenskap (se spesielt episode 32 og 89). Siden dette er et tema uten endelige svar, og siden vi har fått noen fine og kritiske tilbakemeldinger, så tar vi en ny runde om dette tema i dagens episode.  Å snakke om god og dårlig vitenskap kan lett bli uredelig, mest å sammenligne med en hersketeknikk, men samtidig så finnes det jo virkelig et slikt skille. Så hvordan kan vi mene noe om dette spørsmålet, uten å bli høye på pæra, og kanskje til og med bli litt klokere i forbifarten?  Vi snakker om (og namedropper, her må vi være ærlige) alskens folk og bøker, som Gilles Deleuze, Lev Vygotskij, Karen Barad, Donna Haraway, Bruno Latour, Michael Strevens (hans bok The Knowledge Machine er sterkt anbefalt), Lenin (!), Hans Skjervheim, Kim Gunnar Helsvigs Pedagogikkens Grenser (2005), Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, Steve Woolgar, Herman Hesse, Daniel Pennac, Dag Solstad, etc.  Som Pål sier helt på slutten av samtalen, vet ikke om dette gir skikkelig mening for andre enn oss selv, men gitt reaksjoner på tidligere podkaster om samme tema så tar vi sjansen, og hører gjerne fra dere hva dere tenker, både om episoden og om tema mer generelt.  ---------------------------- Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se hans arbeider på originalkopi.com Musikken er av Arne Kjelsrud Mathisen, se facebooksiden Nygrenda Vev og Dur for mer info.  ----------------------------  Takk for at du hører på. Ta kontakt med oss på vår facebookside eller på larsogpaal@gmail.com Det finnes ingen bedre måte å få spredt podkasten vår til flere enn via dere lyttere, så takk om du deler eller forteller andre om oss.  Både Lars og Pål skriver nå på hver sin blogg, med litt varierende regelmessighet. Du finner dem på disse nettsidene: https://paljabekk.com/ https://larssandaker.blogspot.com/   Alt godt, hilsen Lars og Pål

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.

"2. Power and control. Swearing can give us a greater sense of power and control over a bad situation. By swearing, we show, if only to ourselves, that we are not passive victims but empowered to react and fight back. This can boost our confidence and self-esteem and motivate and mobilize us to take corrective action. As Mark Twain put it, 'When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear.' 3. Non-violent retribution. Swearing enables us to get back at bad people or situations without having to resort to violence. Instead of punching someone in the face or worse, we channel and disarm our anger by swearing instead. True, swearing can also be hurtful, but better a few sharp words than a cold dagger. Swearing can also serve as a warning signal or marker of rank and authority, a bit like an animal's growl says: 'Watch out. Stop it. Or you're damn well going to pay the price.' 4. Humor. When among friends, swearing can be a source of mirth. In such circumstances, it represents a release from normal social constraints or, like play-fighting, makes light of a potentially threatening person or situation, and, to some extent, also of ourselves. In that much, swearing, and humor in general, can help to restore perspective on a certain person or situation. 5. Peer and social bonding. Swearing can show that we belong in a certain group, that we are able to be ourselves and wholly comfortable and secure with the members of that group. If done correctly, it can also signal that we are open, honest, self-deprecating, easygoing, and fun-loving. Another form of verbalization that is closely connected with our emotions is singing, and, in clinical practice, I've noticed that when people lose the faculty of speech through brain damage (most commonly dementia or stroke), the ability to sing is often preserved—along with the ability to swear. 6. Self-expression. Swearing can be a way of signaling that we really mean something, or that it is really important to us. That's why swearing is so much a part of any sport. It also broadens our register and makes us more lively and interesting, being used, for example, to add emphasis or 'punch' to our speech. Shakespeare often used foul language, albeit more inventively than most: 'Away, you starveling, you elf-skin, you dried neat's-tongue, bull's-pizzle, you stock-fish!' At the same time, swearing can also be a way of showing that something really means something to us. The philosopher Paul Feyerabend made this point very profoundly: '...when sophistication loses content then the only way of keeping in touch with reality is to be crude and superficial.' 7. Improved psychological and physical health. The health benefits of swearing include increased circulation, elevated endorphins, and an overall sense of calm, control, and well-being. The key is to do it sparingly and not to get angry at the same time, which would be very bad for you—as well as terribly vulgar." --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/antonio-myers4/support

Continuing on Against Method (1975) about the non-rational progress of science. Given that according to F., epistemological conformity can't proceed by an appeal to reason, how does it proceed? Through indoctrination, propaganda, and coercion, even when our goal is to encourage freedom and rationality. If you're not hearing the full version of this part of the discussion, sign up via one of the options described at partiallyexaminedlife.com/support.

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".

Dünyanın lordları, kapitalist ruhsuz ağababaları, dünyayı ele geçirdiler. Devletleri ele geçirerek dünyayı her bakımdan kontrolleri altına alma sürecine girdirdiler dünyayı. Yapay zekâ, genetik mühendisliği ve moleküler biyoloji, şirketlerin kontrolünde, devletlerin değil. Bilimi kontrol eden devletler değil şirketler! Şunu unutmayalım aslâ: Bilimi kontrol eden dünyayı kontrol eder! Neden? Çünkü bilim, çağımızın ayartıcı sahte yeni dini! Bilim deyince akan sular duruyor çünkü. “Bilim düşünemez” demişti büyük düşünür Heidegger. Bilim nesneler arasındaki ilişkiler konusunda açıklama yapabilir sadece. Nesneler arasındaki ilişkileri anlamlandırmaz bilim. Anlama ve anlamlandırma işi, düşüncenin ve felsefenin işi. Cins ve anarşist bilim felsefecisi Paul Feyerabend'in kışkırtıcı tanımlamasıyla “kutsal bir ineğe dönüştürülen bilim”, hem dünya üzerinde hâkimiyet kurmanın, kapitalizmi palazlandırdıkça palazlandırmanın, azmanlaştırdıkça azmanlaştırmanın, kitleleri ise ayarttıkça ayartmanın yegâne elverişli aracı ya da Nietzsche'nin deyişiyle “laik kilise”si çağdaş dünyanın. Bilimi tepe tepe kullanıyorlar. Bir zamanlar, bilimi, insanı özgürleştirmek için

I was recently contacted by a fan of the show asking for advice in the choice of their research topic. Oddly, the best advice I could give them pertained to philosophy of science. In this episode, I expand on what I told them, to explain the most important ideas in the philosophy of science that I think are worth knowing about. My ultimate target is Imre Lakatos. If you can understand Lakatos' idea of research programs then you have all you need. However, in order to properly understand Lakatos, you need to know about Thomas Kuhn's concept of paradigms, "normal" science, and scientific revolutions; and to understand Kuhn, it helps to have some grounding in what Karl Popper had to say about falsificationism before him. I add in Francis Bacon as the founder of science and William of Occam just to mention his timeless razor. The "feel" of this episode is to say that science is done by people, and people are imperfect. Philosophers of science have long discussed the ways in which science should be (or is) done, and as we get to Kuhn and Lakatos it becomes more a case of explaining the often infuriating way that people don't seem to rationally update their worldviews. Paul Feyerabend makes an appearance between Kuhn and Lakatos in this episode to show off some of the more anarchistic views of science, and to help demonstrate through the apparent "cheating" of Galileo and the failings of the Copernican system how sometimes a little stubborn imagination in the face of rational refutation has been good for scientific progress. I am also very happy to bring in my favourite scientific paper of all time, The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science by Evans and Levinson. I use it as an example of how a longstanding theory seems to be alive and kicking despite what seem to be decades of continual refutation, and how this exemplifies Lakatos' idea of research programs, while also seizing the opportunity to talk a little bit about the wonders of linguistic diversity. Overall, I hope that I can convince some people of the relevance of ideas in the philosophy of science to the much more practical issues of research, including why people who are wrong are so hard to convince. Enjoy the episode.

In this episode, Itai and Martin talk to New Zealander Michael Strevens, who – after studying mathematics and computer science – became professor of philosophy at New York University. Michael recently published an amazing book on the scientific method, which not only manages to reconcile crucial ideas by Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Paul Feyerabend, but is also immensely readable. In this episode, he discusses the main ideas of the book with your hosts, including the crucial difference between what scientists say in their official communications and in the privacy of their labs, what makes modern science such a powerful “knowledge machine”, and why it took humanity 2000 years after Aristotle to get there.For more information on Night Science, visit www.night-science.org .

Der SoWi Stammtisch war zu Gast bei Sozioplus. Es ging um Wissenschaftstheorie, Wahrheit und Paul Feyerabend. Den Link zur Sendung findet Ihr hier: https://youtu.be/FXMt_XAMQck Musik:“Off to Osaka”Kevin MacLeodCreative Commons Namensnennung Lizenz MP3-DOWNLOAD (01:24 h)

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.

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

El que es mujeriego, lo seguirá siendo así sea impotente, pobre y feo.

El que es mujeriego, lo seguirá siendo así sea impotente, pobre y feo.

In which Cass & Alex discuss Penguin Highway, directed by Hiroyasu Ishida and produced by Studio Colorido, based on the novel by Tomihiko Morimi. Next month we will be discussing Kare Kano, directed by Hideaki Anno and Hiroki Sato and produced by Gainax and J.C. Staff. Discussed: facing the firing squad, Alex Did Not Like This Movie, The Book Of Henry, a nerdy fourth grader with a harem, Alex And Cass Actually Yell At Each Other and Get Into A For Real Fight, Alex And Cass Consider Not Doing The Podcast After All, Andre Breton, heterosexual romance, the end of Parasite (no spoilers), The Ghost of Anime Past, defensive pessimism, defensive optimism, "i don't hate children! i don't hate children!" alex continues to insist as she slowly shrinks and transforms into a corn cob, That Fucking Social Link In Persona 3 Where That Teenager Wants To Fuck His Teacher, wish fulfillment, Bridge to Terabithia, metaphysical ambitions, ahoge, earthbound dad, Haruki Murakami, Cass realizes that it's more than an hour into the podcast and they haven't even begun to summarize the plot,the very very old Ashens POP Station video, "Seaside Town" by Baths, The Evangelion Extended Universe, Kiki's Delivery Service, Chrono Cross, kids who wore a suit to school, fedoras, people wearing zoot suits and chain wallets in the 90s, the 90s swing revival, the terrible Baz Luhrmann Great Gatsby, how Penguin Highway compares to other racing anime, Free!, Haikyuu!!, Hanebado!, Ping Pong: The Animation, don't make video games, Bertrand Russell, Paul Feyerabend, epistemological anarchism, Cantor's Diagonal Argument (great explanation by vi hart), What The Tortoise Said To Achilles by Lewis Carroll, David Lewis, Ludwig Wittegenstein, Cass left in the long deliberation about what to watch next month because they just don't care anymore, One Hundred Years Of Solitude Cass's book recommendation: The Origin of Capitalism: A Longer View by Ellen Meiksins Wood Alex's book recommendation: The Plague by Albert Camus Social: Show Twitter: @animeisforjerks Show Mastodon: @animeisforjerks@skeleton.cool Show Email: animeisforjerks@gmail.com Cass's Twitter: @prophet_goddess Cass's Mastodon: @prophet_goddess@skeleton.cool Alex's Twitter: @dunndunndunn Alex's Mastodon: @catalina@selfy.army

Lee Smolin is a theoretical physicist, co-inventor of loop quantum gravity, and a contributor of many interesting ideas to cosmology, quantum field theory, the foundations of quantum mechanics, theoretical biology, and the philosophy of science. He is the author of several books including one that critiques the state of physics and string theory called The Trouble with Physics, and his latest book, Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution: The Search for What Lies Beyond the Quantum. EPISODE LINKS: Books mentioned: – Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution by Lee Smolin: https://amzn.to/2TsF5c3 – The Trouble With Physics by Lee Smolin: https://amzn.to/2v1FMzy – Against Method by Paul Feyerabend:

Despues de mucho tiempo un nuevo episodio. En este exploro un poco del pensamiento de Paul Feyerabend, retratado en una de sus obras más iconicas: Tratado contra el método. De esta manera, intentaremos enlazarlo con el estado actual de la ciencia y la actualidad país. Además, al inicio del programa (y a modo de una extraña introducción) se aborda una pequeñísima muestra de lo que fue el pensamiento de J.P Sartre y cómo este puede enlazarse con la epistemología. Recuerden seguirnos en IG en @miscelaneospod o a mi cuenta @panchorodriguez. Tambien en Twitter como @Frodrig_C. Saludos. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/miscelneos/message

No hay mejor forma de curar los dolores de cabeza positivistas con las nuevas “Píldoras Anárquicas” de los Laboratorios Feyerabend, tómese una de estas y entenderá que el Vudú y la Biología son hermanas, verá que la Tira del Cuerito y un Antiácido funcionan del mismo modo, y quizás, también perdamos los fundamentos en el camino. Esperemos que los disfruten. Puedes escucharlo desde la aplicación ANCHOR: https://anchor.fm/gabriel-paravano/episodes/Adelanto-de-la-Temporada-2019-e30p20 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 ITUNES: https://itunes.apple.com/es/podcast/educaci%C3%B3n-para-j%C3%B3venes-epistemolog%C3%ADa-por-audio/id1448671719?l=en Tenemos Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/EducarHumanidades/?ref=bookmarks Tenemos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/educacionparajovenes/?hl=es-la Tenemos Twitter: https://twitter.com/paravano69 ¡Siempre puedes compartirlo o a tu peor enemigo o a tu mejor amigo! SALUD Y BUENAS CIENCIAS Música: “Lone Wolf” de Dan lebowitz

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.

Ikke interessert i hva som beveger seg i barnehageforskningens verden sier du? Med tanke på hvor mange timer og uker og år alle fremtidige store mennesker tilbringer i denne veldig moderne samfunnsinstitusjonen, burde dette nesten være et av de tema vi snakker mest om. Vel, denne episoden handler ikke om barnehager og barnehageforskning generelt, men mer om spenningen mellom forskjellige syn på forskning og kunnskap som finnes på dette feltet (noen som sa smalt?).  Selv om vi begge to jobber innenfor pedagogikkens verden så er ikke dette akkurat vårt fagfelt, men vi gjør vårt beste, fordi det føles viktig og samtidig illustrerer noen mer generelle poenger vi har snakket om i podcasten mange ganger allerede.   Fortell oss gjerne hva du synes om podcasten, både vår behandling av tema i denne episoden og om podcasten mer generelt. Skulle det vise seg at vi har tråkket skikkelig feil noe sted tar vi gjerne imot kritikken og retter det opp i en fremtidig episode. Takk til alle dere som har gitt oss en omtale på Itunes, det er både stas og det får oss til å dukke opp høyere på listene der, noe som formodentlig gjør at flere lyttere oppdager oss. Skriv til oss på facebooksiden vår eller til larsogpaal@gmail.com. Alt godt!   Kilder Terje Ogden, “Motviljen mot evidens i utdanningssystemet”, Bedre Skole, nr.4 2008  John Hattie, Visible Learning: A Synthesis of Over 800 Meta-Analyses Relating to Achievement, 2008  Ann Merete Otterstad, Anne Beate Reinertsen (red.), Metodefestival og øyeblikksrealisme – eksperimenterende kvalitative forskningspassasjer, Fagbokforlaget 2015 Paul Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchist Theory of Knowledge, 1975  Artikkel på Big Think, om Reinertsens artikkel “Welcome to my brain“: http://bigthink.com/neurobonkers/is-this-the-most-bizarre-paper-ever-published-in-a-peer-reviewed-journal   Episode av podcasten You are not so smart, om problemet med å reprodusere forskningsfunn i psykologifaget: https://youarenotsosmart.com/2017/07/19/yanss-100-the-replication-crisis/   Artikkelen i Morgenbladet, pluss noen svar: https://morgenbladet.no/aktuelt/2017/09/posthumanisme-i-barnehagen https://morgenbladet.no/ideer/2017/10/en-metodefestival-pa-ville-veier?utm_content=buffer9956e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer https://morgenbladet.no/ideer/2017/10/hva-slags-barnehageforskning-trenger-vi?utm_content=buffer40e38&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer   Og vi har snakket mer om forskjellige forståelsesformer og typer kunnskap i podcasten, feks i episode 17, Kan vi forstå verden?, så vi tar ikke alt dette på nytt her.  Logoen vår er laget av Sveinung Sudbø, se originalkopi.com for mer info. 

Paul Feyerabend war Vordenker einer demokratischen Wissensgesellschaft, die offen ist für unorthodoxe Denkansätze jenseits dogmatischer akademischer Wahrheitsbegriffe. (Produktion 2014)

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)