> Indeed it does: Chomsky, I mean. I have no interest (and here I do not
> mind being emphatic) in Ehrenreich or the other members of that gang
> (Albert got into it too, IIRC, perhaps also Nussbaum). I have read many
> times over Chomsky in Z Mag and elsewhere, on pomo etc. While I think he
> carries his usually productive false naivete too far (such as in his
> belief that however difficult someone can teach you quantum physics, but
> he cannot comment on pomo because he just can't learn it at all), he is
> saying very similar things as I am. You have in fact taken the trouble
> to exactly highlight those two parts that I am talking about: on the one
> hand the creation of an X, while on the other the difference between
> this X and what really goes on. The only point where Chomsky and I
> differ, I think, is on who created the X. Chomsky I think believes that
> the pomo gang has created X as a caricature to attack, whereas I think X
> is a result of scientism. I think many (if not most) [post-Kuhnian]
> philosophers of science (and the pre-Kuhnian Russell, Chomsky's hero)
> may agree more with me.
As far as who created or imagined X and use it as a bludgeon, this is much of what Albert and Ehrenreich (and Chomsky) take up quite explicitly in the reference I posted. They acknowledge the existence of X and its utility towards Bad Stuff, but protest that the pomos are confusing X and science. They also point out that this is precisedly the confusion exploited by the bludgeon-wielders. Similarly, reading Feyerabend left me with the impression that he is wrestling with whoever came up with X, as opposed to people who work in and think about science as it is practiced. That is the crux of his thesis, yes?
One can and should think about the differences between X and science, the certainty of scientific findings, science and its relationship to truth and beauty, how much and whether *reasonably* *certain* scientific findings should be used to justify coercion (such as in eminent domain, dictating what is and isn't taught in bio, forcing pharmacists to sell birth control), and how and when one should call bullshit on unsupported assertions or meaningless statements (which perhaps Chomsky is deliberately avoiding by feigning naivite) while considering power relations.
But I think you have mashed that all together in suggesting that people shouldn't cut down modern astrology (or other beliefs) because it comforts decent, humble people and we're quite or at all uncertain about it's validity anyway, plus people of power have used the phrase "I'm right and you're not" as a means of unjust control when they were plainly wrong, or even when they were right. These are all largely separate issues.
-- Andy