Timeline for Evidence that epistemological anarchism by Feyerabend is wrong
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
12 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 11, 2022 at 1:16 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Rubus -- forgot to "at" you. | |
| Jan 11, 2022 at 0:19 | comment | added | Dcleve | I created a chat forum to continue this discussion: chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/133079/… | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 21:29 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | But evidence from case studies is only useful if it can be verified with stronger study design. See for example this paper (ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124898) It clearly states several observational studies which found strong effects, which however could not be replicated in randomized controlled studies. Yes case studies might point us in the right direction (hypothesis generating studies). When is it "enough" to only do observational studies..I would argue never if RCT are possible... | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 21:21 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Rubus -- the "hierarchy of evidence" tables are primarily geared toward medicine -- they often are difficult to apply in other fields. Within medicine, I noted one exception -- that the level of insight one gets from case studies, is generally far greater than for double blind studies, which are generally better for nailing down the magnitude of an effect, not initial characterizing of it. For another in CURING a patient, the rigid protocols of an experimental procedure should generally not be treated as rigid. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 20:57 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | "Dealing with shades of grey can be guided by better practices, but sometimes one has to abandon them based on good judgement" -> Could you make an example where abandoning the hierarchy of evidence preemptively would be justified? | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 20:21 | comment | added | Dcleve | @Rubus -- Mostly yes. I see this as part of an overall problem with philosophy to embrace "logic" too much, such that black/white absolutes are embraced when reality is shades of grey. Logical positivism tried to do science per absolutes. Popper and Lakatos came up with more pragmatic/judgement approaches, but then each of them tried to formalize their criteria -- unsuccessfully. Dealing with shades of grey can be guided by better practices, but sometimes one has to abandon them based on good judgement. So your "only if" is too stringent -- sometimes even when available, guidelines fail. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 19:29 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | 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... | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 18:48 | comment | added | Dcleve | @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. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 16:02 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | 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.. | |
| Jan 10, 2022 at 15:54 | comment | added | Dan Hicks | 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. | |
| Jan 9, 2022 at 21:44 | comment | added | CuriousIndeed | 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) | |
| Jan 9, 2022 at 21:07 | history | answered | Dan Hicks | CC BY-SA 4.0 |