Talk:Epistemological anarchism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Systems (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles related to systems and systems science.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is not associated with a particular field. Fields are listed on the template page.


Are there more epistemological anarchists than Feyerabend that are considered philosophers? The article seems to equal Feyerabend STOP... Said: Rursus 14:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Feyerabend invented the term somewhat tongue-in-cheek, and I haven't come across any others who adopted it for their own (meta-)beliefs. Skomorokh 15:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

clean up the page[edit]

Were going to need to clean this page, a lot of linguistic clutter going on here. Murderd2death (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

To those who would doubt...[edit]

Writing articles on obscure philosophical theories has a demonstrable real-world effect, as shown by their currency in the renowned debating salons of the 21st-century.  Skomorokh  12:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


The Rationale section is really hazy to me. I haven't read Feyerabend, so maybe I'm just taking issue with his claims themselves, and not the way they're presented. The whole of the section seems to misunderstand the goal of a scientific theory. The whole "Newton's laws are wrong, so we can pretty much go whole hog and say that science is all bunk" thing, in particular. We know Newton's laws aren't "right;" they're an approximation. Even things like quantum mechanics or general relativity don't make claims of being the Truth with a capital T; it's a mathematical model that is, at the very least, consistent with what we've seen up to this point. But I digress. I only bring these things up to explain what is unclear in the article. Any Feyerabendistas feel up to clarifying things in the article? --Jmatter4 (talk) 02:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Newton's laws are wrong, so we can pretty much go whole hog and say that science is all bunk"
The Feyerabendista does not say that science is bunk, but rather merely that all things except lab experiments are not bunk. This rather mild claim brings her into conflict with certain epistemologies. — goethean 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
There are large chunks of his writings in the wikiquote section of his- if you read those you may be better acquainted with his words, and the writing may make more sense to you. I would try, but I would probably just end up waxing poetic. ProductofSociety (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
I cleaned up the article a bit, hope that fits it better ProductofSociety (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The important point is that a methodology is worth as much as it achieves. For a relatively uncontroversial example (although, Popper would very strongly disagree), it is a theorem of the first order logic that a thing is always equal to itself. This can be "tested" by gathering data, but there it is entirely unfalsifiable. By definition. Therefore, it is "unscientific". On the other hand, the very fact that it is a theorem means that is must be true in every domain, including the physical world. A methodology that seems mystical to a Popperian is actually valid by many sane standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

'see also' section[edit]

someone tried to remove two links in the 'see also' section, a link to the comparative mythology article, on the basis that it was unrelated, and a link to the chaos magick article, because it was 'tangential'. Pointing to comparative mythology in the see also section is not unrelated- the article speaks of comparative mythology in the second paragraph of the 'rationale' section. Getting rid of the chaos magick link because its 'tangential' is a little overboard; its the 'see also' section, its supposed to point to articles of related or tangential material. I put it there because there are very notable parallels between the philosophy of chaos magick and epistemological anarchism.

Epistemological anarchism states "the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself. The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory; as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results, the pragmatic approach is a Dadaistic "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies. The theory advocates treating science as an ideology alongside others such as religion, magic and mythology,"

Chaos magick "emphasizes the pragmatic use of belief systems and the creation of new and unorthodox methods.... chaos magic is often highly individualistic and borrows liberally from other belief systems, due to chaos magic having a central belief that belief is a tool. Some common sources of inspiration include such diverse areas as science fiction, scientific theories, traditional ceremonial magic, neoshamanism, Eastern philosophy, world religions, and individual experimentation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProductofSociety (talkcontribs) 14:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)