In last week's episode, we talked about "Rick and Morty,"
the pursuit of knowledge, and Paul Feyerabend's idea
of an anarchic scientific method.
Let's see what you had to say.
ObisamAnimations, thank you so much for the kind words.
I'm glad that you enjoyed last week's episode.
And you were not alone in your concern
that anarchy was somewhat misrepresented.
Paul Feyerabend does in some ways unfairly
conflate "anything goes" and this idea of anarchism,
both of which are ideas that factor heavily
into "Against Method."
Where maybe he shouldn't, because anarchism
isn't strictly speaking "anything goes."
It's a lack of recognition of authority.
And I think really what he's trying
to get at is that we tend to give this idea of method
within science authority.
And he's asking whether or not that method,
as we tend to understand it, should
have the authority it does.
And that's what he means when he says "anything goes."
This, I think, pairs really well with another set of concerns
raised by Tori Holbrook and a bunch of other people,
sort of saying like, well, there must be ethical limits to this,
or are we really saying that literally anything goes
in that it's OK for us to put people or animals in harm's way
in the name of an "anything goes" science?
And that is not at all what we're advocating for here.
It is rather that in the pursuit of knowledge
we should consider our methods as being
open to any kind of construction of knowledge.
And that includes science, but also includes things
like art, architecture, philosophy, religion, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
It's that "anything goes," and not the
burn the villagers to the ground "anything goes."
Whether or not Rick would feel that way and whether or not he
sort of factors into the anything--
literally anything goes method-- I
think that is another question entirely.
But that is not what Paul Feyerabend was advocating for.
Lori P and, friend of Idea Channel,
SciJoy talk about how, whatever about Rick's method
he is a "far from the ideal" scientist, because he embodies
many things that are poorly perpetrated
in the modern pursuit of science.
As SciJoy puts it, a poorly dressed mad man
with crazy hair who thinks he knows everything.
That Rick is maybe brilliant, but also, especially
you see in his interactions with Summer,
is like a sexist curmudgeon.
So far, far from ideality in that sense.
Hurlebibi writes a really great comment
about how in last week's episode there
was maybe some conflation between science and scientists.
That while science seems to be this nice kind
of holistic body of work uncovering truths
or knowledge about the world, what scientists engage in
is actually far messier and more anarchic
than it is usually given credit.
And so to say that scientists should
adopt a more anarchic process is to kind of just
encourage them to continue doing what they do.
This, I think, is very much related
to another set of concerns raised
by Renato E and a few other people
saying that science, as it is currently practiced,
is no longer really claiming to uncover objective truths
about the universe.
That really it's about creating verifiable sets of knowledge
that are perfectly willing to be disproven by future work.
And that, insofar as Paul Feyerabend talks
about science uncovering knowledge
that is true in some way, that's maybe an old fashioned idea.
And I think that is a great point.
And I think that it's totally true.
And I think that really what we're talking about
is the popular idea of science.
That when people who are not necessarily scientists
are talking about science, they are
more likely to talk about it as though it is creating knowledge
and it is uncovering truths.
Or conversely, if real knowledge or true knowledge does exist,
people will tend to think that that knowledge was
created by science.
And what Paul Feyerabend is saying, like, "whoa, whoa.
I don't know.
Like maybe knowledge and truth, whatever
we think of those things as being,
are just as likely to be made by other pursuits."
Comments from archlorddestin and JBantha ask whether or not
in the absence of things like peer review
or a scientific community, can we really consider
Rick a scientist?
That if you are developing this knowledge in a vacuum
and you're not sharing it with colleagues or other scientists,
are you really doing scientific work?
And I think this is a really interesting and really good
question.
And my gut says no, but I can't really
put a finger on why, because, right,
it's not-- there's nothing inherent
about the scientific process that says other people have
to be involved.
But it just seems wrong if they're not.
I don't know.
What do you guys think about this?
Relatedly, Dezmond Finney talks about how
the pursuit of science can be seen
as a pursuit of universality in that the humanities are
powerful, but they are powerful because of their emphasis
on subjectivity.
But that subjectivity makes forming a shared
body of knowledge very difficult.
And that the sciences can adopt an "anything goes process,"
but that they still have to aim for this idea of universality,
which I think is a really interesting way
of looking at this.
Thanks for this comment, Dezmond.
Jan Alfeche takes some of these ideas one step further
and says that really in order to be a scientist
one should not only be comfortable but willing
to go against the grain.
And I think that this is true to a certain degree,
but when it is taken too far, I think
that you get into this area of obscurantism
that you are pushing so hard against the grain
that you are encouraged to essentially create nonsense,
because you need to carve out this extra space that
doesn't already exist.
And I think this happens a lot in the social sciences.
I'd be curious to know whether or not
this happens in-- you know, like theoretical physics seems
like a place where you can really push super hard for very
obscure and difficult ideas.
Ferus Priest writes a great comment
about the idea of Orthons, which are things
that are claiming or reaching for truth
but can never really get to them.
And this is something that I'd never heard about.
So if you're interested in this kind of stuff.
Check it out.
It's really neat.
Professor Politics writes a comment
about how Rick might not be the ideal scientist,
but together, Rick and Morty might
create an ideal scientist.
That for all of the cynicism and ethical transgression that Rick
gets himself involved in, Morty is someone who cares and is
curious and wants things to be right.
And that the two of them together
form a great narrative foil.
And in the process might actually
create a kind of ideal curious, questioning, and capable
scientist.
And I think this is a great point.
Smegle Smegleton-- come on.
"Uncanny Valley" is not that bad.
The reason it's here is because it's
the one I could get the easiest.
I really wanted it to be "Emergency & I."
But "Emergency & I," at the time that I wanted to buy it,
I couldn't find it on vinyl.
It was because-- I mean it came out
in the middle of the height of CDs.
So I think they just released on vinyl.
But I'm not-- I like-- I don't mind "Uncanny Valley."
Ah, Travis, if you're watching this.
I'm sorry.
I did say science is not the only thing that
can contribute to knowledge so that people
would watch a YouTube video.