There are times when I am not sure if I am an ID proponent or not.

I meant to write:

There are times when I am not sure if I am an ID proponent or not.

I would say that would be a reasonable conclusion for some ID proponents. Unfotunately, most ID critics (indeed, most people in general) tend to think Feyerabend was a crank himself (see Matzke above), so it would be odd to see somebody using a crank to defend respectable thinkers from other cranks.

Only a truly warped individual could make that observation.

I love it!

The ID movement is well served with you on their side.

There are times that I am not sure if you an ID proponent or not.

There are times when I am not sure if I am an ID proponent or not. For the most part I agree with Paul Nelson when he said that ID has a "bag of powerful intuitions" (or something to that effect) but not developed theory.

Using Feyerabend's own words, wouldn't it be reasonable of some ID critics to come to the conclusion that a lot of ID proponents are cranks because they are ""¦content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and "¦ not at all prepared to test its usefulness"

I would say that would be a reasonable conclusion for some ID proponents. Unfotunately, most ID critics (indeed, most people in general) tend to think Feyerabend was a crank himself (see Matzke above), so it would be odd to see somebody using a crank to defend respectable thinkers from other cranks.

If you would like me to make a constructive point, here it is: new philosophies of science are doomed to failure unless they can distinguish the wheat from the chaff.

So let's see those labelling skills in action. Here is the bin: parapsychology research, BigFoot research, SETI, abiogenesis research, evolutionary biology.

Start separating and explain your reasons.

There are times that I am not sure if you an ID proponent or not. Please take that as the compliment I intended it to be.

From the link you provided…
"…the distinction between the crank and the respectable thinker lies in the research done once a certain point of view is adopted. The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and he is not at all prepared to test its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favour the opponent, or even to admit that there exists a problem."

While this quote could be interpreted either way (anti evolution or anti ID), it goes to the necessity of testing the idea.

As far as I can tell, I am the only one prepared to present an ID proposal as a personal idea to be tested by people in this blog. Chunkdz offered the possibility of a "Species of the Month" plan of "nature worshiping space aliens". However, I doubt he was being serious.

Using Feyerabend's own words, wouldn't it be reasonable of some ID critics to come to the conclusion that a lot of ID proponents are cranks because they are "…content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and … not at all prepared to test its usefulness"

No one has presented any evidence on the point except for me pointing out that he treats it like alternative medicine, which he was apparently quite favorable to.

And he also treats it like the church saving souls, which as far as I know he didn't believe.

My overall point is that when people like Feyerabend try and overthrow the dogmatic, narrow methods/philosophies of science … they *always* end up letting in essentially unlimited amounts of wackiness, because they've done away with the very constraints that made science reliable in the first place.

Feyerabend didn't do this. People who have misread Feyerabend have thought he's done this, but he didn't. See below.

"If you would like me to make a constructive point, here it is: new philosophies of science are doomed to failure unless they can distinguish the wheat from the chaff. If they cannot, (a) creationists and other cranks will immediately jump on board in another desperate attempt to gain credibility, and (b) scientists (and sooner or later, philosophers) will conclude the new philosophy is unreliable and gets bollocks results, and consequently ignore it."

First of all, this has nothing to do with my post, so it's hardly constructive. Second of all, you've never responded to Hugo's critique of this. Scientists tend to ignore philosophers of science, whether it is good philosophy or not. Some scientists will attach onto somebody like Popper or Kuhn, despite the known flaws in their philosophy of science (maybe because it does describe how science in their field is often done or maybe just for rhetorical purposes).

Third of all, Feyerabend never said you couldn't separate the wheat from the chaff. What he argued was that if you need some rule that holds in all places at all times that will tell us what is science and what is not, then the only rule you will find will be completely useless: anything goes. I'm sure if Feyerabend were alive today and you could ask him what a good scientific theory looked like, he'd tell you that it would be falsifiable and make predictions and be compatible with other accepted theories and be useful to scientists and so on. But if it didn't have one of those, he wouldn't automatically declare it bad science just because it didn't follow the rules. Why? Because this is how science has worked in the past. Scientists sometimes dogmatically hold on to theories and undogmatically hold on to the rules of science (and sometimes its the other way around). But that doesn't mean we can't recognize the general traits of a good scientific theory.

When I point out that Feyerabend's argument here is actually quite modern you move on to try to prejudice people against him by suggesting he believes in telekinesis, even though he in no place says he does.

No one has presented any evidence on the point except for me pointing out that he treats it like alternative medicine, which he was apparently quite favorable to.

But, let's assume Feyerabend does believe in telekinesis"¦ so what? This is just text book ad hominem, designed to make Feyerabend look bad and having nothing to do with what I wrote in the post.

Well gee, maybe it should be rather embarassing if a philosopher of science like Feyerabend, while deigning to critique all of the other scientists and philosophers of science for their beknighted views, comes along and endorses clear crankery like telekinesis. This just might be a warning sign that the man's philosophy of science doesn't work very well (if it was meant to be taken seriously at all, that is).

My overall point is that when people like Feyerabend try and overthrow the dogmatic, narrow methods/philosophies of science, or when creationists take such attempts as favorable to their own ridiculous views, they *always* end up letting in essentially unlimited amounts of wackiness, because they've done away with the very constraints that made science reliable in the first place.

If you would like me to make a constructive point, here it is: new philosophies of science are doomed to failure unless they can distinguish the wheat from the chaff. If they cannot, (a) creationists and other cranks will immediately jump on board in another desperate attempt to gain credibility, and (b) scientists (and sooner or later, philosophers) will conclude the new philosophy is unreliable and gets bollocks results, and consequently ignore it.