-----Original Message----- From: ravi <gadfly at home.com> To: lbo-talk at lists.panix.com <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Date: Tuesday, January 08, 2002 11:27 PM Subject: Re: Science, Science & Marxism
>Scott Martens wrote:
>
>>
>> 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:
Feyerabend wanted to abolish any separation between science and other stuff. He was willing to let anything be called science, since people had done science, and made important discoveries, starting from all sort of preconceptions. At least that is what I have always understood him to say. In short he was willing to call everything science. That is tantamount to equating astrology and astronomy.
>how and why would one equate astronomy and astrology? are there
>objective standards to do so? "use" is relative to need, no?
No, I'm hard pressed to think of an objective standard for doing so. My intent in that post was to highlight the ambiguity in trying to define science and how unsatisfactory refusing to define science is.
Scott Martens