Newsgroup sci.philosophy.tech 20917

Directory

Letter from: Andrzej Brodziak, Silesian School of Medicine
Subject: Biographic data base for anybody. The planetary human resources =
base (PHRB). New Internet service, which you could offer for any people.
LETTER TO MEMBERS OF YOUR CLUB =
	You are predestinated to open a new acivity! You could found the first I=
nternet centre accessible for anybody, for billions people which will sta=
rt to gather common biographic records. It would be the equivalent of dat=
a as in WWW, but not for institutions, this time for a person, for any pe=
ople. Probably you could gain as much as the Editor of "Who is who in the=
 world" and simultaneously you will support the right way of the developm=
ent of our planetary civilisation.
	Arguments for your potential clients.
	Why any people could be interested to place his biography in the memory =
of your server?
	Anybody has his own particular story to tell to all other people in the =
world. It could be the autobiography, formulated in a very interesting wa=
y, like a literature story. It can be additionally also the unique story =
witten by the author of the autobiography. It could be the list of papers=
 published by him and some his not published texts, rejected by "maliciou=
s" reviewers or "narrow-minded" editorial boards. All data of this kind s=
hould be summarized at the end of the record by kind of a list of key wor=
ds or some other kind of "parameters" of the life and of a person.
	As an example I am proposing to put in this fixed form summarizing life =
and person review (SLPR) three important questions:
1. Which is your particular feature, talent, trait of personality or comp=
etence, so distinct that other are jealous of it even?
2. Which movies (idols) seen in the past impressed you so much that influ=
enced all your life?
3. Which novel or psychological / philosophical dissertation, read by you=
 impressed you so much that changed your life attitude.
	Personal data of your clients would constitute the fragment of the most =
important data base in the world, namely the planet human resources base =
(PHRB). It will be the most reviewed and searched data in the near future=
=2E
Arguments for investors initiating public centres of autobiographic data =
(PCAD)
	There are many institutions who supply already now similar services. Man=
y people have to day their "enlarged visit card" in the form of their rec=
ords in different kinds of "Who is who" books or on WWW pages of their in=
stitutions (e.g. see WWW pages of the author of this letter - http://www.=
slam.katowice.pl.; klin5chw(infomed. slam.katowice. pl). But you could ar=
range the publication of interesting texts about the idea of PHRB in jour=
nals and other multimedia to convince everybody to order the service in y=
our CENTRE. This time it is a chance for anybody, not for prominent perso=
ns, but for average people, who can become prominent in the future, becau=
se they will think over their mythology, their legend, because they will =
improve their self-esteem mainly therefore that PHRB will be really revie=
wed in the near future by many reasons which are unusual to day.
	Why I am transferring in details this idea? Which is my personal =
	interest? Yes I am motivated by several reasons:
1. I need data about people ready to open a kind of PCAD with eventual de=
tailed characteristics about proposed form of SLPR and possible kind of s=
earching through.
2. I can offer, for eventual authorized utilization (or paper publication=
), also be e-mail, the text of my next book, concerning the subject of "p=
ersonal legend and personal mythology" which can convince anybody to this=
 idea. The book has the title "An your unusual life, and your unusual min=
d also ..." and is based on the review of the phenomena of lifes of most =
know creators (scientist, writers, paiters and so) I could negotiate the =
rule of utilization of this text by you. The transient difficulty is that=
 this book is still in Polish language only, but it is the challenge for =
in the Internet World possibilities and should be very easy to overcome. =
The text of the book could be transfed by e-mail for another member of th=
e club who knows Polish language, for review and eventual translation (ha=
lf of author tandiems - it is the stake). All the book is accessible as a=
 file under ftp:\\infomed.slam.katowice.pl./pub/Medic/Bmind. Copyrights f=
or paper publication by Andrzej Brodziak. Electronic utilization is free.=
3. I am ready to cooperate to in the organisation of the scientific confe=
rence (with real, physical participation) about PHRB, PCAD and SLPR.
					Please send you remarks on my e-mail address.
Prof. Andrzej BRODZIAK, M.D., Ph. D., Sc. D.
5-TH  DEPARTMENT  OF  INTERNAL  DISEASES
OF SILESIAN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE
41-902 BYTOM, ul. =BDeromskiego 7  (POLAND)
tel. & fax (4832) 812122 ; tel. (4832) 810231 ext. 286
INTERNET address: klin5chw(infomed.slam.katowice.pl
http://www.slam.katowice.pl

Bill Fisher wrote:
> In article , jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
> ...
> > I think the philosopher Joseph Agassi's treatment of Feyerabend, as in his
> > "Feyerabend's Defense of Voodoo: how to get away with murder" gives Feyerabend
> > the treatment due him.  A.F. Chalmers in his outstanding philosophy of science ...
> ...
> 
>   Does this mean that Feyerabend was dissed, or not?  (It reminds me of the
> neatest turn-down letter I ever got: "We regret that we cannot afford to
> hire a person of your quality.")
What happened went something like this: In the early 70s, one of
Feyerabend's best friends, Imre Lakatos, convinced that they should
write a book together, Feyerabend criticizing the kind of philosophy of
science that Lakatos would defend. Lakatos died in 1974, before writing
his part, and Feyerabend published his critique in 1975 as _Against
Method_ (revised English editions 1988 & 1993).
It was widely reviewed, and something was common with most of the
reviews. They were extremely poor: the reviewers attributed to
Feyerabend views he had never defended, overlooked Feyerabend's detailed
warnings against misinterpretation even in the early chapters of the
book.
Most of the attributed to Feyerabend a view according to which "anything
goes", and labelled this "doctrine" according to the subtitle of the
book, "anarchistic theory of knowledge" (which Feyerabend thought was a
blatant contradiction in terms and thus an obvious joke).
Feyerabend used the two words, "anything goes", *not* to describe a view
of his but as a jocular description of the predicament of his dearest
opponent, Lakatos. "[Lakatos] demanded that research programmes show
certain features _in the long run_ - they must be progressive... I have
argued that this demand no longer restricts scientific practice. Any
development agrees with it. The demand (standard) is _rational_, but it
is also _empty_. Rationalism and the demands of reason have become
purely verbal in the theory of Lakatos." (_Science in a Free Society_,
p. 15)
Feyerabend replied to most of the "major" reviews, trying more or less
patiently and in much detail correct the reviews' mistakes, to no avail.
He even reprinted most of the replies as a third part, "Conversations
with Illiterates", of his 1978 book, _Science in a Free Society_. This
had no positive effect, on the contrary, the reviewers misused the
replies against Feyerabend (they didn't like their competence being
questioned). Nor did Feyerabend's analysis of the mechanisms of
misinterpretation at work in his case and in that of others (Bohr, and
especially Mach) help (see his "The Lessing Effect in the Philosophy of
Science: Comments on Some of My Critics", _New Ideas in Psychology_ 2
(2), 1984).
The myths about Feyerabend live and prosper, even after 20 years of the
publication of the book and Feyerabend's attempts at correction. This
appears to be so because the views misattributed to Feyerabend are such
that they form a self-perpetuating picture, making it unlikely that
someone who holds these views about Feyerabend will ever take the
measures to correct them.
Cheers,
Marko
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Marko Toivanen _/_/_/_/_/ co-moderator of bourdieu & feyerabend on
marko@joyl.joensuu.fi _/_/_/  majordomo@lists.village.virginia.edu
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ http://www.village.virginia.edu/~spoons/feyerabend/
For the modern mind doctrine and influence suggest heroes and cults.
Any persistent opinion gets traced back to a personal origin, and we
depend upon history to explode or inflate the myth that results. 
 - Scott Buchanan

G*rd*n (+@+.+) wrote:
: moggin@mindspring.com (moggin):
: | ... 
: |    That's not my theory,  or my theory-of-theories -- 
: | like Newton, I make no hypothesis (or hypothesis-of-
: | hypotheses).  It's interesting, though, that Iain seems
: | to have discarded falsification, which some of the other
: | science campers were recently urging on me as _the_
: | concept to rely on in evaluating theories.
: 
: Well, one could discuss whether or not falsification is
: really the magic pill of its repute.  I think not.  However,
: we would probably want to discuss it in sci.philosophy.tech,
: rather than a.p, r.a.b, t.o, and a.s.  I have set the 
: followup to bring this happy result about.  The opening
: shot should probably respond to the recent all-theories-are-
: sorta-wrong consensus, which would seem to invalidate
: falsfication. 
: -- 
:    }"{    G*rd*n   }"{  gcf @ panix.com  }"{
Lets first clear up any alleged loyalty of conservative physicists to
falsification.
The vector representation of almost all physical objects so represented
can be shown inconsistent by simply changing scale and recalculating the
length of the vector representation.  So, the cross-product of two 1m
vectors changes in length from as much as 1m to as much as 1,000,000mm
when switching to the millimeter scale of length.
The change in objective length when recalculated really is an empirical
falsification of vectors blithly ignored in the authoritarian
indoctrination of first-year students.  This inappropriate use of vectors
is a classic use of nonsense as a loyalty test.  Somewhat self-conscious
conservative physicists would indeed shy away from empiricism - not in
defense of a better method, but to defend the normal and irrational course
of human ideology. 
Some sciences are not empirical - mathematics, computer science, and the
prospective Spinozan pursuit of ethics.  But what is needed for all
sciences is a Spinozan level of integrity as well as a commitment to some 
form of logical coherence.
-- 
Michael J. Burns                            http://www.indirect.com/www/mburns/
  "We are such stuff                             "Oh brave new world, 
   As dreams are made on, and our little life     That has such people in't!"
   Is rounded with a sleep."

In article <32B9FB56.BA1@joyl.joensuu.fi>,
Marko Toivanen   wrote:
>What happened went something like this: In the early 70s, one of
>Feyerabend's best friends, Imre Lakatos, convinced that they should
>write a book together, Feyerabend criticizing the kind of philosophy of
>science that Lakatos would defend.
Do you have any support for this claim?
>reviews. They were extremely poor: the reviewers attributed to
>Feyerabend views he had never defended, overlooked Feyerabend's detailed
>warnings against misinterpretation even in the early chapters of the
>book.
Any support?
>Most of the attributed to Feyerabend a view according to which "anything
>goes", and labelled this "doctrine" according to the subtitle of the
>book, "anarchistic theory of knowledge" (which Feyerabend thought was a
>blatant contradiction in terms and thus an obvious joke).
Any support?
>Feyerabend used the two words, "anything goes", *not* to describe a view
>of his but as a jocular description of the predicament of his dearest
>opponent, Lakatos. "[Lakatos] demanded that research programmes show
>certain features _in the long run_ - they must be progressive... I have
>argued that this demand no longer restricts scientific practice. Any
>development agrees with it. The demand (standard) is _rational_, but it
>is also _empty_. Rationalism and the demands of reason have become
>purely verbal in the theory of Lakatos." (_Science in a Free Society_,
>p. 15)
This doesn't support your claim that "anything goes" is a not a view of
Feyerabend's.
>Feyerabend replied to most of the "major" reviews, trying more or less
>patiently and in much detail correct the reviews' mistakes, to no avail.
>He even reprinted most of the replies as a third part, "Conversations
>with Illiterates", of his 1978 book, _Science in a Free Society_.
Is this ad hominem title a sign of his patience?
>This
>had no positive effect,
Gee, I wonder why.
>on the contrary, the reviewers misused the
>replies against Feyerabend (they didn't like their competence being
>questioned).
How about if *I* question *your* competence, eh?
>Nor did Feyerabend's analysis of the mechanisms of
>misinterpretation at work in his case and in that of others (Bohr, and
>especially Mach) help (see his "The Lessing Effect in the Philosophy of
>Science: Comments on Some of My Critics", _New Ideas in Psychology_ 2
>(2), 1984).
Since anything goes, Feyerabend feels free to criticize his opponents rather
than respond to their arguments.  After all, the normal rhetorical methods are
among those to be stood against.
>The myths about Feyerabend live and prosper, even after 20 years of the
>publication of the book and Feyerabend's attempts at correction. This
>appears to be so because the views misattributed to Feyerabend are such
>that they form a self-perpetuating picture, making it unlikely that
>someone who holds these views about Feyerabend will ever take the
>measures to correct them.
A rather self-fulfilling view, much as skeptics in the room with Uri Geller
produce bad vibes that interfere with his powers, I suppose.
--