Opinions vary.
Author Information: Ian James Kidd, University of Nottingham, ian.kidd@nottingham.ac.uk
Kidd, Ian James. “How Should Feyerabend have Defended Astrology? A Reply to Pigliucci.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5, no. 6 (2016): 11-17.
The PDF of the article gives specific page numbers. Shortlink: http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-31a
Please refer to:
- Kidd, Ian James. “Why Did Feyerabend Defend Astrology? Integrity, Airtue, and the Authority of Science.”Social Epistemology (2016): 1-19. doi: 10.1080/02691728.2015.1031851.
- Pigliucci, Massimo. “Was Feyerabend Right in Defending Astrology? A Commentary on Kidd.”Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5, no. 5 (2016): 1-6.
Image credit: Alan Bloom, via flickr
I am grateful to Massimo Pigliccui for his response to my paper,[1] the subject of which was Paul Feyerabend’s well-known, but poorly-understood “defences” of astrology, voodoo, and other “eccentric” beliefs, practices, and traditions. Like many modern Feyerabend scholars, my sense is that there is a lot of sense in the epistemic…
View original post 3,111 more words
