<HTML>Claire wrote:
>
> Hi Martin
>
> I have a very superfical understanding of Feyerabend's views
> on science - but I think I see what you're saying. That
> would be a reasonable position - but he does seem to weight
> geology as 'hard-nosed' because it is more 'scientific' which
> would presuppose this underlying assumption that science is
> best?
Consider the context. West is countering claims that his views on the Sphinx are unscientific. He does this by citing scientific support. It's a debating point. I doubt it tells us much about his views on science per se.
> Or am I showing my ignorance of Feyerabends's views?
> ~lol~ (vaguely science is only one method of discovering
> knowledge amongst many, and cannot be easily be shown to be
> superior? Do I have the right guy?)
He went further than that. He was very anti any suggestion of science having a superior or exclusive claim to knowledge.
The point with respect to West is that he's versed in a case for scepticism about science and its claims. Simplistic scientism isn't an option for him.
> This talk of relative 'hardness' is interesting me because it
> seems to be the way that some people are deciding this
> debate. It seems to be a case that geology is perceived as
> being more 'scientific' a way to decide the age of the Sphinx
> that the methods of archaeology. See Ishmaels post below The
> Geology of the Sun. I know this has been discussed before,
> but that post just reminded me of it. :-) You're right
> though - it is rhetorical.
It's worth remembering how certain supporters of Schoch massively disregarded the geological consensus when it came to Hapgood's crustal displacement theory.</HTML>
