Edit - Philosophy Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

1

Appreciate the answer. Considering page 6 of your presentation, as I understand you list these as factors which could be improved implying some value system what is better for establishing truth..Isn't that against "anything goes"...(I absolutely agree with these recommendations however I'm not sure Feyerabend would have)
– CuriousIndeed
Commented Jan 9, 2022 at 21:44
Feyerabend's argument is that we need methodological anarchism because the aim of science is truth. The basic argument strategy of Against Method is to show that, for any given epistemological principle, some historical scientist made progress towards truth by violating that principle.
– Dan Hicks
Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 15:54
Couldn't findings which violated good practice also be by chance or because they were low hanging fruits?? For example, I could find an effect with a very small sample size, but it doesn't follow that sample size is not important, and obviously one should not recommend a small sample size..
– CuriousIndeed
Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 16:02
@Rubus -- I can't speak for Dan Hicks, but will try to answer here anyway. YES, there are better practices, and larger sample sizes are among them. BUT -- many sciences cannot DO sample size easily -- Astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, sociology, economics, geology -- many sciences are primarily observational. And for, say, medicine -- case studies which are very small sample size are often very illuminating/suggestive of problems with treatments, and ways to improve them. Generalities have exceptions. Feyerabend focused on these valid exceptions to an excessive degree.
– Dcleve
Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 18:48
ok..but shouldn't it then be "anything goes but only if there aren't better alternatives"..I mean clearly there is a hierarchy of evidence...
– CuriousIndeed
Commented Jan 10, 2022 at 19:29

| Show 6 more comments

Correct minor typos or mistakes
Clarify meaning without changing it
Add related resources or links
Always respect the author’s intent
Don’t use edits to reply to the author

create code fences with backticks ` or tildes ~
```
like so
```
add language identifier to highlight code
```python
def function(foo):
print(foo)
```
put returns between paragraphs
for linebreak add 2 spaces at end
_italic_ or **bold**
quote by placing > at start of line
to make links (use https whenever possible)
<https://example.com>
[example](https://example.com)
<a href="https://example.com">example</a>

formatting help »
answering help »