>
> Yet, clearly not everything is equally useful. It's not all science (as
> Feyerabend suggested). Equating astronomy and astrology is clearly a
> mistake.
>
are you saying pkf said "its not all science" or "its all science"? if the latter:
i have read pretty much all of feyerabend's writings and though i cannot say that the line above ("its all science") is not used by him, i think it turns his position on its head.
how and why would one equate astronomy and astrology? are there objective standards to do so? "use" is relative to need, no?
--ravi