For and Against Creationism
by machtI've been reading the book For and Against Method. The first third of the book consists of a number of lectures by Imre Lakatos on scientific method, as well as a short piece written by Paul Feyerabend. The rest of the book consists of personal correspondence between Lakatos and Feyerabend between the years 1968 and 1974. I wanted to share what Feyerabend had to say about creationism. Feyerabend writes to Lakatos:
"In my philosophy of science class I started by defending Max Rafferty who suggested that genesis and evolution should be taught as two alternative theories rather than one a fairy tale and the other a "fact." There was a riot, and next time there will be a biologist professor (a bigshot) defending evolution, and a fundamentalist minister defending genesis. That should really lead to anarchy. By now students as well as professors say that I am immoral and that I should get out of university life, so, you see, I share the fate of every true anarchist."
In a later letter, Feyerabend writes:
This week somebody is going to talk about yoga and in the meantime I am encouraging people to elaborate Genesis in order to make it a useful alternative to Evolution. Thinking about it, our chairman broke a leg and is laid up with it.
And then even later, after talking about some Jehovah's Witnesses that have been coming to his house, he writes:
In my class on the philosophy of science I had a debate on Genesis vs evolution, the guy from evolution was mean, the guy from Genesis was cowardly and it was generally a great bore. Of course, the guy from Genesis said, Genesis was not meant to be taken literally, it is a moral document etc. etc [...]. Well, first of all, he is not correct, and secondly, science often made progress by taking parts of silly doctrines seriously and using them for an attack against well-established, scientific, precise etc. views. Thus Copernicus turned to the Pythagoreans, those strange people who had a secret society, thought that women were equal to men, ate no flesh, revered the number ten, revered fire and therefore made the earth move as it obviously was not fire and, as the most dignified element could not be supposed to run around, Copernicus turned to this strange philosophy, picked up one element of it, the motion of the earth, and knocked Ptolemy to the ground with it.
September 26th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
I like that
Comment by Afon — September 26, 2006 @ 9:03 pm
September 27th, 2006 at 6:52 am
(from Bergen, Norway)
Feyerabend consistently cheered on rebels such as creationists. IIRC, in Against Method (1975), he wrote "Three cheers for the creationists in California who upset the educational establishment" (or something like that; recalled from memory this morning).
Feyerabend was widely feared and detested by more orthodox epistemologists, who saw him as a dangerous troublemaker. But often, in unguarded moments, they praised his insight and acumen. When I was studying the philosophy of science at Pittsburgh with Carl Hempel, Feyerabend's name came up in class one day. Hempel's face brightened with a wry, grandfatherly smile.
"Paul Feyerabend!" he said. "A wild horse."
"But," he added, "he knows his physics."
Comment by Paul Nelson — September 27, 2006 @ 6:52 am
September 28th, 2006 at 2:30 am
Stephen Meyer quotes Feyerabend The Methodological Equivalence of Design & Descent: Can There Be a Scientific "Theory of Creation"
Thanks for the deligtful essay, Macht.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 28, 2006 @ 2:30 am
September 28th, 2006 at 12:20 pm
Sal,
I think Meyer actually agrees quite a bit Feyerabend's position. Feyerabend wasn't against ALL methods, he was against THE method. That is, he was against people who claim that there are certain universal rules that scientists have hold to at all times. Meyer writes:
This, in fact, sounds exactly like something Feyerabend would say and it is difficult for me to see how Meyer's position is any different than Feyerabend's. For more information on Feyerabend's argument, see here.
Comment by macht — September 28, 2006 @ 12:20 pm
September 28th, 2006 at 2:16 pm
Remember this thread the next time you see IDists/creationists complaining about postmodernism, relativism, etc…
Comment by Nick Matzke — September 28, 2006 @ 2:16 pm
September 28th, 2006 at 2:50 pm
I fail to see any postmodernism, relativism, etc. in this.
Comment by macht — September 28, 2006 @ 2:50 pm
September 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Feyerabend's point seems to be simple. If you look at the history of science, you can find examples of silly ideas (or parts of silly ideas) being developed into theories that scientists find useful. As a teacher, he was asking students to take a modern silly idea and make it stronger. That seems, to me, to be the opposite of postmodernism and relativism. Postmodernists tend to be against the idea that science must "legitimize" ideas, which seems to be what Feyerabend was asking his students to do. And relativists would say science and silly ideas are all on an equal plane and there is no need for silly ideas to be developed.
Comment by macht — September 28, 2006 @ 3:16 pm
September 29th, 2006 at 3:12 am
It didn't look to me like Paul Nelson and Sal Cordova were understanding Feyerabend in the way you described…unless they think their own creationist ideas are silly.
Comment by Nick Matzke — September 29, 2006 @ 3:12 am
September 29th, 2006 at 3:29 am
I'm not sure what their understanding was of my post. It is pretty clear, though, that it (my post) had nothing to do with postmodernism or relativism. I didn't really see either of those in their replies, either. But I'll still remember this thread, if you want me too …
Comment by macht — September 29, 2006 @ 3:29 am
September 29th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
I can't speak for Paul, but I don't think my creationist ideas are silly. I feel comfortable offering them to the public as having a 75% chance of being correct.
I'm not a post-modernist or relativist. That grates against all of my mathematical and engineering and computer science background. Something is either true or it's not, the issue is we humans don't always have as much data as we would like to make assertions at the level we can make for mathematical theorems.
I can say, Darwinian evolution is mathematically self-contradictory or supported by circular reasoning at best. If my language about ID or creationism is ever guarded, it is guarded when we are talking purely about science since the amount of info we have is limited.
However, if one asked what my opinion is, I'd say it's true, but that is an opinion, not something that one can deduce with the rigor of math.
However, in contrast, I can say, with the confidence close to the rigor of math, Darwinian evolution is circular at best and self-contradictory or wrong at worst. Whether ID is true is a separate issue, but I have no reason to believe the major claims of Darwinism are true any more than believing square circles exist. Darwinism fails as a theory because it is self-contradictory and tautologous. There is no relativism there. At least Ptolemaic epicycles were self-consistent even though the didn't match the evidence and eventually proven false. Darwinism is unique in that it is neither self-consistent and neither does it match the evidence.
Kepler took outrageous ideas from numerology and astrology as inspiration for celestial mechanics. Maxwell supposed an Aether to justify electro-magnetism, and Newton formulated his laws from a non-Einsteinian viewpoint. The point is, the inspiration could be fundamentally flawed as well as the premises, but the final outcome could still be very close to the truth.
Let us say, hypothetically the creationists are wrong, their support of the design arguments in the end could still prevail.
However, let me say, I personally think if the YECs had a beer bet to be settled in heaven with the OECs, I would be the YECs will win, and I'm looking forward to being served that beer.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — September 29, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
September 29th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Salvador T. Cordova
Excuse me for butting into this conversation, but I have a personal interest in this "beer bet" prediction because it puts me in a very uncomfortable place (pun intended).
If I understand the basic premise in For and Against Method, it is mostly another appeal to think outside the box. Don't be afraid of using an allegedly "wrong" method to attack a problem, because sometimes the "wrong" or "silly" method exposes a unique point of view that turns out to be valuable.
I don't find labels like "post-modernist" or "relativist" to be very constructive in discussions or debates, so I tend to ignore them. However, even I can't ignore the labels "truth" and "wrong", which is where Sal took his "beer bet" conversation.
I believe science is the pursuit of knowledge as opposed to the pursuit of truth. It isn't about who can claim victory or wins a bet (at least it isn't supposed to be). For example, Steven Hawking lost a bet on whether or not information could escape Black Holes. It was totally unimportant that Steven Hawking was wrong, the knowledge gained by the exercise was what was important. BTW, the effect was named after the guy who thought it couldn't happen, Hawking Radiation.
So, if you will make room for me in heaven, I will gladly pay my portion of the beer tab, but don't be surprised if I am unfazed by whether or not I lost a bet.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 29, 2006 @ 3:35 pm
September 29th, 2006 at 11:27 pm
Copernicus got it late - not his fault though - he was late by about 1100 years - coming well after Aryabhatta. There was some very interesting work going on well beyond Copernicus's understanding. Apart from of course the sine and cosine and the Hemachandra Series that a guy in Italy became famous for, infinite series had already been derived and explored.
Comment by agam — September 29, 2006 @ 11:27 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 12:19 am
Salvador,
There is no beer in heaven. Root beer is a different story, though.
Comment by Douglas — September 30, 2006 @ 12:19 am
September 30th, 2006 at 12:26 am
I believe science is the pursuit of knowledge as opposed to the pursuit of truth. It isn't about who can claim victory or wins a bet (at least it isn't supposed to be). For example, Steven Hawking lost a bet on whether or not information could escape Black Holes.
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2006 @ 12:26 am
September 30th, 2006 at 12:37 am
I think Feyerabend was against the idea of science "˜legitimizing' ideas as he was against the idea of religion "˜legitimizing' ideas"¦ that's why he cheered for creationists because he viewed : "Any ideology that makes man question inherited beliefs is an aid to enlightenment. A truth that reigns without checks and balances is a tyrant who must be overthrown and any falsehood that can aid us in the overthrow of this tyrant is to be welcomed." Feyerabend goes on: "It follows that 17th and 18th century science indeed was an instrument of liberation and enlightenment. It does not follow that science is bound to remain such an instrument" and of course it hasn't as Feyerabend says: "My criticism of modern science is that it inhibits freedom of thought. If the reason is that it has found the truth and now follows it then I would say that there are better things than first finding, and then following such a monster." Feyaerabend preferred freedom and mental independence.
[ quotes from Feyerabend's : How to defend society against science]
Comment by de_nacisse — September 30, 2006 @ 12:37 am
September 30th, 2006 at 12:42 am
How to defend society against science
Comment by de_nacisse — September 30, 2006 @ 12:42 am
September 30th, 2006 at 10:33 am
It is not without reason that Chandra called Newton the Last Great Alchemist. What Kepler or Copernicus; Madhava or Nilakantha, Kapila or Gargi believed is irrelevant. Science is THE method because its results are reproducible. It's a simple thing really, but then human beings are not known for their grasp of simplicity or reality. The Sakhyamuni is said to have spent more time on convincing his followers about his humanness and naturalness than on explaining the essence of life.
Feyerabend is quite obviously a scientific illiterate. His little rant is underwhelming. He can have all the freedom of thought he wants. Like for instance he can take a plane 5,000 meters up into the sky and bail out without a parachute. Science says that his chances of survival are miniscule (yes there are quite a few people who have survived that way). These pitiful screeds against science and scientists are the result of a failure to accept that science has become a very demanding discipline that provides the best RoI in today's economy.
Comment by agam — September 30, 2006 @ 10:33 am
September 30th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
It is not without reason that Chandra called Newton the Last Great Alchemist.
Maybe not the last alchemist after all.
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
Closing Bradford's open blockquote.
To Bradford,
Do you realize what you are doing than causes the blockquotes to get messed up?
You open a blockquote without closing it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 30, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 1:22 pm
Do you realize what you are doing than causes the blockquotes to get messed up?
You open a blockquote without closing it.
Let's see how this comes out. No blockquotes tried. They were not used in the other post either. I'm using italics instead.
Comment by Bradford — September 30, 2006 @ 1:22 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
Bradford asked…
"Truth" is problematic for me because, by itself, its usefulness is limited to being a club and/or a badge. People can be "right" without having any knowledge as to why they are right. Such people have no other method for spreading the word of this truth besides through threats or appeals to authority.
Furthermore, people who know they are right have little reason to question themselves. People who are convinced they are wrong about something are compelled to understand why or how they are wrong. This is why scientists work so hard attempting to falsify hypotheses. More knowledge is gained by being proven wrong than continuing with an assumption of being right.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 30, 2006 @ 1:46 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
In everything I've ever read about Feyerabend, this is the one thing that NOBODY complains about. They complain about his conclusions, they complain about his style of writing, they complain about his attitude, but I have yet to find anybody criticize Feyerabend for not knowing his science. As Hempel (via Paul Nelson) said, "he knows his physics."
Comment by macht — September 30, 2006 @ 4:29 pm
September 30th, 2006 at 5:56 pm
Macht wrote…
Unless agam is a NOBODY, Macht is obviously WRONG.
Macht, please excuse my using your words for an example of how truth and being right can be used as a club. Because it matters little if Macht is literally incorrect, Macht's point still has validaty. This is the message I believe Feyerabend is saying about creationism and other such ideas.
To agam,
Can you suggest anytime in the history of science where those performing science didn't believe that it had "become a very demanding discipline" I offer that even alchemists claimed their art was a very demanding discipline. What makes your claim any more valid? Because you know you are right?
I'm with Feyerabend, it is precisely the fact that a method is being applied without question, that it must be questioned.
Whether you are for ID or Evolution, you are in trouble the moment you stop questioning your own assumptions. It is not about being right or wrong, it is about the pursuit of knowledge.
Comment by Thought Provoker — September 30, 2006 @ 5:56 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 9:04 pm
How to defend society against science
Heh:
Feyerabend apparently knew his telekinesis as well as his physics.
Comment by Nick Matzke — October 1, 2006 @ 9:04 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Yes, he was knowledgeable of a number of subjects.
Comment by macht — October 1, 2006 @ 9:35 pm
October 1st, 2006 at 10:56 pm
agam : "He can have all the freedom of thought he wants. Like for instance he can take a plane 5,000 meters up into the sky and bail out without a parachute. Science says that his chances of survival are miniscule."
And the Bible says "˜don't test the Lord' "“or something like that. Of course, they didn't have planes back then "“ it was a cliff with rocks below "“I think. But the important thing is that the Bible and Science agree about hard falls"¦ I wonder what the voodooist perspective says ?
Comment by de_nacisse — October 1, 2006 @ 10:56 pm
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:33 pm
Macht, you would agree with me and the last 400 years of physics in saying that telekinesis is bogus, wouldn't you?
Comment by Nick Matzke — October 2, 2006 @ 11:33 pm
October 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 pm
Yes, and so would Feyerabend:
Do you even understand what Feyerabend's point is in this section?
Comment by macht — October 2, 2006 @ 11:55 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 2:21 am
Well, it's clear he's not saying telekinesis is bogus, he's saying it's a "phenomenon." Looks to me like he's saying it's real if you just free yourself from the constraints of scientific dogmatism. And if you do you open up new vistas of "research." He thinks about it like he thinks of alternative medicine.
Comment by Nick Matzke — October 3, 2006 @ 2:21 am
October 3rd, 2006 at 3:18 am
I imagine he'd say that luminiferous aether and n-rays are phenomena, too. As far as I know he wasn't a Christian, either, so I also imagine that he thought that it is bogus (in the next sentence) that the "Church saved souls." He also sat on his death bed in a modern, western hospital so I imagine that he thought alternative medicince was bogus too. But what he thought about these things really has nothing to do with the argument he was making in that section.
If you are really interested in what Feyerabend thought was real and what he thought was bogus, you might want to pick up his book Conquest of Abundance, since in it he writes at length about how people throughout history have decided what is real or not.
Comment by macht — October 3, 2006 @ 3:18 am
October 3rd, 2006 at 11:53 am
Well, what you say is not what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says:
Feyerabend might have a point with alternative medicine: it is quite conceivable that folk medicines and the like have physical and psychological mechanisms that are effective despite not having been through double-blind medical trials. But telekinesis is something else entirely — about as credible as perpetual motion machines — so when Feyerabend puts it in the same category he really weakens his position.
But in Feyerabend I think we do have the roots of the reason that the ID side brought up the "paranormal" repeatedly in the Dover trial.
Comment by Nick Matzke — October 3, 2006 @ 11:53 am
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:36 pm
As I said, his argument in that section doesn't depend on whether he accepts them or not (nor whether you think telekinesis is "in the same category" as alternative medicine, whatever that means). Of course, I'm not convinced you even know what Feyerabend's position is, let alone whether it is weakened by talking about telekinesis. But the fact does remain that when push came to shove and he was dying, Feyerabend was in a hospital and not at some alternative medicine shop.
As far as I can remember, both sides of the Dover trial brought up the paranormal. Pennock talked about the phenomenon of telekinesis and Gillen mentioned the paranormal in his opening statements. The only mention of the paranormal by the ID side was by Fuller and that was once, not repeatedly. Not that any of those mentions have anything whatsoever to do with Feyerabend's argument in this section.
Comment by macht — October 3, 2006 @ 12:36 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Matzke, this is getting silly. You seem to be here only to try to make Feyerabend look bad through rhetoric and taking things out of context. You start out by saying some jibberish about postmodernism - playing on the popular stereotype of both what postmodernism is and what Feyerabend's "positions" are. 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.
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.
Now, do you have something useful to say about the subject matter of the post or not?
Comment by macht — October 3, 2006 @ 12:50 pm
October 3rd, 2006 at 6:02 pm
I agree that there is plenty of room in science for involving creative and unconventional ideas in developing new perspectives and fresh approach to problems. However, in my recollection, this fable about Copernicus basing his ideas on the Pythagoreans seems inaccurate. I will look back into it to confirm my memory.
Comment by Avispex — October 3, 2006 @ 6:02 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 5:20 pm
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.
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.
Comment by Nick Matzke — October 5, 2006 @ 5:20 pm
October 5th, 2006 at 11:57 pm
And he also treats it like the church saving souls, which as far as I know he didn't believe.
Feyerabend didn't do this. People who have misread Feyerabend have thought he's done this, but he didn't. See below.
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.
Comment by macht — October 5, 2006 @ 11:57 pm
October 6th, 2006 at 11:20 am
In Feyerabend's own words, how he distinguishes cranks from respectable thinkers. This fits in rather well with the original post, don't you think?
Comment by macht — October 6, 2006 @ 11:20 am
October 7th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Hi Macht.
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"
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 9:30 am
October 7th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Nick:
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.
Comment by MikeGene — October 7, 2006 @ 1:07 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
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.
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.
Comment by macht — October 7, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
October 7th, 2006 at 8:45 pm
Macht wrote…
Only a truly warped individual could make that observation.
I love it!
The ID movement is well served with you on their side.
Comment by Thought Provoker — October 7, 2006 @ 8:45 pm
October 8th, 2006 at 12:00 am
I wrote:
I meant to write:
Comment by macht — October 8, 2006 @ 12:00 am
March 4th, 2008 at 5:21 pm
[...] I haven't had time to read much of Feyerabend myself, from what quotes I have read from him, I really like him. His main work is Against Method. Anyway, Telic Thoughts had a great writeup on his views of Creationism. It is well worth the read. [...]
Pingback by Feyerabend and Creationism and Feyerabend and Creationism — March 4, 2008 @ 5:21 pm