>>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.
>
according to pkf, they are both science if one follows the definitions of science offered by scientists. i am not sure that pkf particularly cared if astrology was admitted to be a "science" or not (other than that members of the field can then claim some of the large public monies that are allocated to scientific work - hence pkf's call for a separation of science and state), but was more interested in showing, as you outline above, that if science is to be defined by its method, then at least a study of the actual methods used by "scientists" shows them to be similar to that of asrologers, etc. i would read pkf as saying that astronomy and astrology are equal in that they are both human activities. one is done by astronomers and the other by astrologers.
--ravi