Nature of scientific method – Paul Feyerabend, Philosopher of Science.

Chief Big Soldier of the Osage of the Missouri region.

“I see and admire your manner of living, your good warm houses; your extensive fields of monoculture, your gardens, your cows, oxen, workhouses, wagons, and a thousand machines, that I know not the use of. I see that you are able to cloth yourself, even from weeds and grass. In short you can almost do what you choose. you whites possess the power of subduing almost every animal to your use. you are surrounded by slaves. Everything about you is in chains and you are slaves your selves. I fear if I should exchange my pursuits for yours I too should become a slave”.

(This the reason I will not embrace science-technology, monotheism, atheism or any of the institutions of thought presented by western civilization, as I have noticed those who have accepted are completely captivated and can not see outside the orthodoxy of  Occidental reasoning).

"Circle-A" anarchy symbolIn his books Against Method and Science in a Free Society Feyerabend defended the idea that there are no methodological rules which are always used by scientists. He objected to any single prescriptive scientific method on the grounds that any such method would limit the activities of scientists, and hence restrict scientific progress. In his view, science would benefit most from a “dose” of theoretical anarchism. He also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.

For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a “search for the truth” in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour? “Is it not possible,” asks Kierkegaard, “that my activity as an objective [or critico-rational] observer of nature will weaken my strength as a human being?” I suspect the answer to many of these questions is affirmative and I believe that a reform of the sciences that makes them more anarchic and more subjective (in Kierkegaard‘s sense) is urgently needed.Against Method. p. 154

“Here go a read more, and open up your closed and unnatural atheist-scientific monotheistic  mind there is more to the natural reality then what western civilization has presented as the truth, so stop playing the sucker and play it real and think coherently,at least for yourself and possible for the future of your children”