I think I have enough to make a start now. I must first say thank you for this.

The last line of the manifesto will be:

“This manifesto is drawn on paper, not set in stone”

Anyway, I just stumbled on something that struck me as counter to the science-as-oppressive-ideology argument; on p. 31 of Bertrand Russell’s ‘Power’, of all places. It’s this: “Science, in giving some real acquaintance with natural processes, has destroyed the belief in magic, and therefore the respect for the intellectual.” (That is, scientists do not usually command the sort of respect bestowed on medicine-men and fakirs.) So you’d expect science to be self-correcting even in its social aspects, almost to the point of subverting itself — provided that people have opportunity and interest for education, natch. (Which in turn recalls the description of discordianism as “self-subverting dada-Zen”. Could it be that it’s the most scientific of faiths?)

And I like it. I think that really says something about us, that we can come together and have intelligent conversations and discussions, even though we don’t always agree.

That’s the same argument that Creationists use to push evolution out of the minds of people. Feyerabend may have a good point about certain sociological aspects of science, but there are many respected philosophers of science that disagree with him. What about Popper, what about Khun, or Lakatos, or Ruse? Ruse in particular is relevant, as a philosopher of Christianity as well as science.

The difference between scientists and followers of a religion is this: even if the scientist is, in some ways, dogmatic and locked into a potentially incorrect paradigm, he consciously believes that facts and theory, reason and logic, are what underpin his beliefs. He believes because he thinks he has been convinced by evidence (the dogma-thing notwithstanding: even in that case, he still thinks it’s logical). In the case of religion, the belief is from the argument of authority. We believe it because god says so, written in this book, here. Dogma, and they don’t care. Fundamentalist religion is a willful rejection of logic and reason, in favour of the argument form authority.

So yeah: Feyerabend is neat, interesting, good to read. But Science is not Religion.

Feyerabend, people.

Maybe:

We are a consensus of non-consenters, united only by or disunity.

: )

Also, potentiality is a very fun word.