Scrape wikipedia-science: 466 new, 4 updated, 490 total (kb-cron)
This commit is contained in:
parent
a3c611c03a
commit
2130054def
33
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede-0.md
Normal file
33
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Bill Gaede"
|
||||
chunk: 1/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:24.628009+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Guillermo "Bill" Gaede (born November 19, 1952) is an Argentine engineer and programmer who is best known for Cold War industrial spying on behalf of Cuba, Iran, and China conducted while he worked at Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and Intel Corporation (Intel). While at AMD, he provided the Cuban government with technical information from the semiconductor industry, which the Cubans passed on to the Soviet bloc, primarily to the Soviet Union and East Germany. In 1992, Gaede turned himself over to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), which placed him in contact with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The FBI began working with Gaede in a counter-espionage operation intended to penetrate Cuban intelligence using his contacts on the island. During this time, Gaede obtained work at Intel Corp. in Chandler, Arizona. Intel Security discovered the nature of his activities at AMD and terminated him, but not before Gaede filmed Intel's state-of-the-art Pentium process from home.
|
||||
Gaede fled with this technology to South America, where he allegedly sold the information to Chinese and Iranian representatives. Upon his return to the United States, Gaede was arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. He was convicted and sentenced to 33 months in prison in June 1996, after which he was deported. The 9th Circuit Court rejected Gaede's appeal, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari.
|
||||
Gaede later wrote a critique of mathematical physics and the usage of the scientific method in the disciplines of physics, biology, anthropology, and palaeontology according to his interpretations. Gaede's theories have mainly been proliferated via the Internet.
|
||||
|
||||
== Early years ==
|
||||
Gaede was born in Lanús, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, the third of four siblings of Gunther and Wiera Gaede. The Gaedes migrated to Rockford, Illinois, in 1959, but returned to Argentina in 1965 disillusioned with their experience in the United States. Although from a Peronist background, Gaede joined the Communist Party of Argentina at the age of 21 while serving as a steward of FOETRA, the union of the state-owned telephone company ENTel. After his application for a Cuban resident visa was turned down, he re-entered the United States in 1977, this time as a tourist. In the U.S., Gaede worked under the alias Ricardo Monares at Caron International in Rochelle, Illinois.
|
||||
|
||||
== Working at AMD and connection with Cuba ==
|
||||
Gaede moved to California and started working at AMD in Sunnyvale in September 1979. By 1982, he had strived to become a process engineer. Still faithful to his socialistic principles, Gaede began to gather technical information from AMD, which he offered to the Cubans in one of his trips to Buenos Aires.
|
||||
In 1986, Gaede was transferred to AMD's plant in Austin, Texas. This move enabled Gaede to take material in the trunk of his car and deliver the technology to Cuban agents on the Mexican side of the border.
|
||||
Gaede was so successful in this clandestine operation that Fidel Castro arranged to meet him in person in Havana at the end of 1988. Gaede eventually traveled in 1990, but by then had become disenchanted with communism. The entire Soviet bloc had disintegrated during 1989.
|
||||
|
||||
== CIA and FBI involvement ==
|
||||
At the urging of renegade Cuban agents, Gaede turned himself over to the CIA on July 13, 1992. The FBI interrogated Gaede in September 1992 and began to use him in a counter-intelligence operation against Cuba. The FBI admitted reimbursing Gaede $607.16 for "expenses incurred in connection with a counterintelligence matter." The plan consisted of taking advantage of Gaede's intelligence contacts on the island.
|
||||
|
||||
== Gaede and Intel ==
|
||||
While under FBI supervision, Gaede obtained a job as a programmer at the Intel chip plant in Chandler, Arizona. The FBI alleges that it alerted Intel of Gaede's background. Intel flatly denies the allegation, stating that had the company known of Gaede's background, "It is safe to say that Gaede would not have been hired."
|
||||
Intel terminated Gaede's employment in June 1994. However, before Gaede was fired, he managed to film the entire Pentium process database from his home, ironically, using a terminal provided by Intel. He placed a camera and filmed the specs as they rolled on the screen. Shortly after, Gaede fled to South America and began to peddle the technology through the embassies of China and Iran. He allegedly counseled and trained Chinese and Iranian engineers in American manufacturing processes. Gaede was arrested by Argentine authorities as he attempted to bury tapes and documents. He was subsequently interrogated by the Secretaría de Inteligencia (SIDE) and the CIA in Buenos Aires.
|
||||
Intel security manager Steve Lund arranged to meet Gaede in Argentina at the Sheraton Hotel on May 14, 1995. During their meeting, Gaede admitted to Lund to having stolen AMD material and equipment and given it to the Cubans. He also admitted to taking Intel's Pentium process and providing it to foreign countries. Intel alleged, further, that Gaede sent a video of the Pentium technology he copied to rival AMD.
|
||||
As a result of these acts, Intel filed a civil complaint against Gaede in Argentina and criminal charges in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. Gaede denied the charge of sending tapes to AMD and accused the CIA of framing him.
|
||||
|
||||
== Return to the United States, arrest, conviction and deportation ==
|
||||
Gaede returned to the United States in June 1995 and was arrested by the FBI on September 23. He represented himself in court and changed his plea after reaching an agreement with federal prosecutors. The agreement included a clause advising against deportation despite that Gaede was known to be in the country illegally. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) proceeded to process Gaede for removal despite the recommendation. Initially, Gaede prevailed in his deportation case, but the government appealed. The case was remanded, and Gaede was subsequently deported.
|
||||
38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede-1.md
Normal file
38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Bill Gaede"
|
||||
chunk: 2/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gaede"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:24.628009+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== The Industrial Espionage Act of 1996 ==
|
||||
During Gaede's prosecution, AMD, the FBI, the U.S. Attorney, and all affected parties complained that there were no laws to prosecute cases such as his. Shortly after Gaede's plea, the United States Congress enacted the Industrial Espionage Act of 1996, legislation that would soon be used to prosecute activities of the type Gaede was involved in.
|
||||
|
||||
== Charges against him ==
|
||||
National Stolen Property Act – US Code Title 18 Section 2314
|
||||
Mail Fraud – US Code Title 18 Section 1341
|
||||
|
||||
== Accusations against José Cohen Valdés and the Cuban government ==
|
||||
Gaede created some controversy in the Cuban exile community in July 2009 by publicly accusing Miami businessman and ex-DGI (Cuban Intelligence Directorate) Captain José (Pepe) Cohen Valdés of working under the supervision of the Cuban government while on the island. Gaede claims that the American intelligence agencies never recruited Cohen because they did not believe Cohen to be credible. Gaede further accuses Cohen of deliberately misinforming the American intelligence agencies by channeling false information through him to the CIA and of betraying both him and their comrade in arms, Rolando Sarraff Trujillo, sentenced to 25 years in prison for espionage in Cuba after Cohen's defection. Gaede accuses the Cuban government of masterminding a counter-espionage operation against the U.S. that revolved around Cohen and his commander, Major Onelio Beovides. Cohen denies the charges.
|
||||
|
||||
== Critique of mathematical physics ==
|
||||
In 1997, Gaede developed a critique of mathematical physics which was centred upon the semantic issues of the popular presentations of general relativity, quantum mechanics, and string theory. On February 20, 1998, Gaede completed his critique in book form, along with a theory of light, magnetism and gravity developed as a recreated model of physics in light of his deconstruction of the old models. His model is known as the rope hypothesis. This book remained unpublished until 2008, under the title Why God Doesn't Exist, with his major contention being that mathematical physics constitutes a religion and also a possible premise for arguments relating to the existence of God. The vast array of his arguments revolve around the fallacy of reification, or misplaced concreteness. Gaede claims that all theories of mathematical physics use abstract concepts as physical objects acting in reality. "Forces", "waves", "points", "fields", and so on, are not physical, but conceptual, according to Gaede.
|
||||
|
||||
== El Crazy Che ==
|
||||
A documentary titled El Crazy Che was released at the Buenos Aires International Festival on April 17, 2015. This biographical movie narrates Gaede's spying activities in favor of Cuba, Iran and China. Gaede says he turned Rolando Sarraff Trujillo over to the Cuban authorities in 1994 by mailing a letter to the Cuban Intelligence Directorate. According to Gaede, Sarraff Trujillo had no bearing on the identification of Ana Montes. The United States exchanged the remaining members of the Cuban Five for Sarraff Trujillo during the Cuban Thaw because the Government regarded Alan Gross to be a hostage.
|
||||
El Crazy Che was available on Netflix as of October 15, 2017.
|
||||
Nowadays El Crazy Che is available on Amazon Prime, TubiTv, and other streaming platforms.
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Winkler, Ira (1999). Corporate Espionage: What It Is, Why It's Happening in Your Company, What You Must Do About It. Prima Lifestyles. ISBN 0761518096.
|
||||
"Historia y Estilo (XXXV)". Emilio Ichikawa (Spanish). July 23, 2009. Archived from the original on July 10, 2011. Retrieved November 15, 2009.
|
||||
"¿Espionaje en serio?". Emilio Ichikawa (Spanish). July 24, 2009. Archived from the original on March 16, 2011. Retrieved November 15, 2009.
|
||||
"Spy Man at Intel". Tucson Credentials. August 1, 1996.
|
||||
"Cracking down on the outlaws of cyberspace: INTEL CHIP CASE: Pentium prosecution required creativity". Kuji Media Corporation: The History of a Computer Hacker. June 26, 2008.
|
||||
Director of Central Intelligence 30-day Report. U.S. Government Printing Office. June 21, 1995. ISBN 9780160476266.
|
||||
"The Rope Hypothesis" (PDF). Bill Gaede. February 5, 2020.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,26 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Brian Martin (social scientist)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_(social_scientist)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:30.299420+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Brian Martin (born 1947) is a social scientist in the School of Humanities and Social Inquiry, Faculty of Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities, at the University of Wollongong (UOW) in NSW, Australia. He was appointed a professor at the university in 2007, and in 2017 was appointed emeritus professor. His work is in the fields of peace research, scientific controversies, science and technology studies, sociology, political science, media studies, law, journalism, freedom of speech, education and corrupted institutions, as well as research on whistleblowing and dissent in the context of science. Martin was president of Whistleblowers Australia from 1996 to 1999 and remains their International Director. He has been criticized by medical professionals and public health advocates for promoting the disproven oral polio vaccine AIDS hypothesis and supporting vaccine hesitancy in the context of his work.
|
||||
Martin has spoken at a British Science Association Festival of Science, and testified at the Australian Federal Senate's Inquiry into Academic Freedom. The crustacean Polycheles martini was named after him.
|
||||
|
||||
== Biography ==
|
||||
Martin was born in the United States in 1947 and raised in Tulsa, Oklahoma. He earned a BA in physics at Rice University in Texas in 1969, and, seeking to avoid conscription into the Vietnam War, emigrated to Australia, where he earned a PhD in physics at the University of Sydney in 1976.
|
||||
|
||||
== Research and academia ==
|
||||
Martin's original academic field was theoretical physics, and he worked in both stratospheric modelling and numerical methods during his career. He has published extensively about the social dynamics and politicisation of controversial scientific topics. His topics of inquiry have included the globalization of polarised science such as the origin of HIV/AIDS. He argues that there are situations in which scientific research that threatens vested interests can be suppressed. He describes a number of direct and indirect mechanisms through which he argues that this can occur, ranging from the denial of funds and the denial of promotion and tenure, through to the creation of a "general climate of fear". Martin's work on in this area has provided what Delborne describes as a "key foundation for conceptualizing scientific dissent".
|
||||
Martin has been active in the criticism of university systems. He has criticized conflicts of interest where universities are managing internal investigations that may lead to bad publicity, and recommends having independent groups investigate allegations of misconduct; he has written about the unauthorised use of research produced by students and junior researchers by senior academics; and he has been outspoken against sexual relationships between staff and students. He also reports that any bias within universities could simply be due to students strategically working in-line with the biases of their teachers.
|
||||
Martin believes that if complainants go through the official channels the outcome is very predictable, in that the organisation's internal grievance procedures, or making a complaint to the relevant ombudsman, does not work. He also believes whistleblower laws do not work, saying; "Not only are whistleblower laws flawed through exemptions and in-built weaknesses but in their implementation they are rarely helpful".
|
||||
|
||||
== Controversies ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Academic freedom ===
|
||||
Martin was subjected to an attempted academic gag when he published material about the forced retirement of a University of Adelaide academic. His university instructed him to remove the content from his website after Adelaide University threatened to sue. Martin's published material in question is now found on other websites.
|
||||
In April 2001, Martin published an article in defence of Edward J. Steele, a sacked academic at UOW in the national newspaper The Australian. In a response published in the same paper, the Vice-Chancellor of Murdoch University Steven Schwartz accused Martin of a position supporting the concept of a "laissez-faire attitude towards academic freedom (in which all sides are presented impartially)" saying his "approach to academic freedom is neither logical nor practical" as this approach "forces universities to abandon their most cherished values: scholarship, wisdom and truth".
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Brian Martin (social scientist)"
|
||||
chunk: 2/2
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Martin_(social_scientist)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:30.299420+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Vaccines ===
|
||||
Martin has offered support for the discredited proposal that oral polio vaccine caused AIDS. The hypothesis first came to notice in Rolling Stone magazine by way of journalist Curtis and AIDS activist Elswood in 1992, and was later further promoted by the journalist/writer Hooper and Martin, with Hooper crediting Martin for giving the OPV-AIDS link hypothesis "further publicity and credibility". Martin disputes the claim that he has been a supporter of the hypothesis, instead saying that he has "never argued in favour of the OPV theory", but has instead stated "that it was and remains worthy of consideration yet in many ways has been unfairly dismissed". A 2016 article in The Australian described Martin's 2010 paper as claiming "that medical researchers had colluded to silence the theory that the AIDS virus was caused by contaminated polio vaccines in 1950s Africa."
|
||||
Immunologist and research scientist Greg Woods refuted Martin's posit on the Tasmanian devil facial tumour disease stating Martin's 2014 paper in The Conversation on the theory behind the cancer "misrepresents the state of the science".
|
||||
In 2014, Martin published a paper characterising criticism of Andrew Wakefield's discredited claims about vaccines and autism as "suppression of vaccination dissent". In 2016, an Agence Science-Presse piece accused Martin of defending "the idea of a vaccine-autism link." However, Martin disputes this, saying: "I have never defended this idea." The Australian reported that "Martin is a former paid member of the anti-vaccine Australian Vaccination Network", and that Martin states that he is also a member of the American Skeptics Society.
|
||||
Martin has been criticised for his role in the Judith Wilyman PhD controversy where medical academics and the AMA raised concerns of whether Martin had the necessary knowledge to assess her doctorate which discussed vaccine science. The Australian has criticised him as not recognising academic rigour over academic freedom, and surgeon John Cunningham called on the university to have the thesis "reviewed by people whom have knowledge of vaccinations".
|
||||
In 2016, the Australian Skeptics criticised Martin's supervision of Wilyman by presenting Martin, Wilyman and the Social Sciences Department of the University of Wollongong the satirical Bent Spoon Award for awarding "a PhD thesis riddled with errors, misstatements, poor and unsupported 'evidence' and conspiratorial thinking".
|
||||
|
||||
== Publications ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Books ===
|
||||
Truth tactics (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2021)
|
||||
Official channels (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2020)
|
||||
Jørgen Johansen and Brian Martin. Social defence (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2019)
|
||||
Vaccination panic in Australia (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2018)
|
||||
The deceptive activist (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2017).
|
||||
Ruling tactics: methods of promoting everyday nationalism, how they serve rulers and how to oppose them (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2017).
|
||||
Nonviolence Unbound (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2015).
|
||||
The Controversy Manual (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2014).
|
||||
Doing Good Things Better (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing, 2013)
|
||||
Justice Ignited: The Dynamics of Backfire, (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007).
|
||||
(with Wendy Varney). Nonviolence Speaks: Communicating against Repression, (Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 2003).
|
||||
Nonviolence versus capitalism, (London: War Resisters' International, 2001).
|
||||
Technology for Nonviolent Struggle, (London: War Resisters' International, 2001).
|
||||
(with Lyn Carson). Random Selection in Politics, (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999).
|
||||
The Whistleblower's Handbook: How to Be an Effective Resister, (Charlbury, UK: Jon Carpenter; Sydney: Envirobook, 1999). Updated and republished 2013 as Whistleblowing: a practical guide, (Sparsnäs, Sweden: Irene Publishing)
|
||||
Information Liberation, (London: Freedom Press, 1998).
|
||||
Tied Knowledge: Power in Higher Education, (self-published, 1998).
|
||||
Suppression Stories, (Wollongong: Fund for Intellectual Dissent, 1997).
|
||||
Social Defence, Social Change, (London: Freedom Press, 1993).
|
||||
Scientific Knowledge in Controversy: The Social Dynamics of the Fluoridation Debate, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1991).
|
||||
(with C. M. Ann Baker, Clyde Manwell & Cedric Pugh) Intellectual Suppression: Australian Case Histories, Analysis and Responses, (Sydney: Angus & Robertson, 1986) ISBN 0207151326
|
||||
Uprooting war, (London: Freedom Press, 1984).ISBN 978-0900384264
|
||||
The Bias of Science (Society for Social Responsibility in Science, 1979) ISBN 0909509131
|
||||
|
||||
=== Journal articles in the physical sciences ===
|
||||
His most cited papers are:
|
||||
|
||||
Davies, Brian; Martin, Brian (1 October 1979). "Numerical inversion of the laplace transform: a survey and comparison of methods". Journal of Computational Physics. 33 (1): 1–32. Bibcode:1979JCoPh..33....1D. doi:10.1016/0021-9991(79)90025-1. ISSN 0021-9991.
|
||||
Hess, David; Martin, Brian (1 June 2006). "Repression, Backfire, and The Theory of Transformative Events". Mobilization: An International Quarterly. 11 (2): 249–267. doi:10.17813/maiq.11.2.3204855020732v63. ISSN 1086-671X.
|
||||
Martin, Brian; Richards, Evelleen (1995). "Scientific Knowledge, Controversy, and Public Decision Making". Handbook of Science and Technology Studies. SAGE Publications, Inc.: 506–526. doi:10.4135/9781412990127.d30. ISBN 978-0-7619-2498-2. Retrieved 22 January 2024.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Other journal articles (selection) ===
|
||||
Brian Martin (1990). Captives of Controversy: The Myth of the Neutral Social Researcher in Contemporary Scientific Controversies, Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 15, No. 4, Fall 1990, pp. 474–494
|
||||
Martin, Brian (1996). "Sticking a Needle into Science: The Case of Polio Vaccines and the Origin of AIDS". Social Studies of Science. 26 (2): 245–276. doi:10.1177/030631296026002003. S2CID 146463905.
|
||||
Juan Miguel Campanario & Brian Martin (2004). Challenging dominant physics paradigms, Journal of Scientific Exploration, vol. 18, no. 3, Fall 2004, pp. 421–438.
|
||||
David Hess & Brian Martin (2006). Repression, backfire, and the theory of transformative events Mobilization, Vol. 11, No. 1, June 2006, pp. 249–267.
|
||||
Martin, Brian (2015). "On the Suppression of Vaccination Dissent". Science and Engineering Ethics. 21 (1): 143–157. doi:10.1007/s11948-014-9530-3. PMID 24658876. S2CID 9824788. Published online: 23 March 2014.
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Personal home page
|
||||
Brian Martin, University of Wollongong
|
||||
20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatline_(B.o.B_song)-0.md
Normal file
20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatline_(B.o.B_song)-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Flatline (B.o.B song)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatline_(B.o.B_song)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:22.165575+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
"Flatline" is a song by American rapper B.o.B, initially released on SoundCloud in January 2016. It is a diss track aimed at physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson, whom he had gotten into an argument with on Twitter, over B.o.B's stated belief that the Earth is flat. The lyrics to the song refer to science as a cult.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
Vulture music critic Nate Jones commented, "It's called 'Flatline,' which is both a reference to the horizon of the Earth and also a fitting description of B.o.B's career."
|
||||
Following criticism, B.o.B removed the song from his SoundCloud account, but it survives on YouTube and other sites where it was reposted. In April 2016, B.o.B included the song on a mixtape titled E.A.R.T.H. (Educational Avatar Reality Training Habitat), but the song lyrics had been rewritten as titled as pt. 2.
|
||||
In response to B.o.B's Twitter arguments with Neil deGrasse Tyson, the latter's nephew, an amateur rapper using the stage name Ellect, released a dis track of his own titled "Flat to Fact" which echoes several of his uncle's talking points and features Tyson himself providing spoken word interjections.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
67
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias-0.md
Normal file
67
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Funding bias"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:23.325584+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Funding bias, also known as sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, funding publication bias, and funding effect, is a tendency of a scientific study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias has been associated, in particular, with research into chemical toxicity, tobacco, and pharmaceutical drugs. It is an instance of experimenter's bias.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Causes ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Human nature ===
|
||||
The psychology text Influence: Science and Practice describes the act of reciprocity as a trait in which a person feels obliged to return favors. This trait is embodied in all human cultures. Human nature may influence even the most ethical researchers to be affected by their sponsors, although they may genuinely deny it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Misconduct ===
|
||||
|
||||
Scientific malpractice involving shoddy research or data manipulation does occur in rare instances. Often, however, the quality of manufacturers' studies are at least as good as studies that were not funded by a special interest. Therefore, bias usually occurs for other reasons.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Predetermined conclusion ===
|
||||
Research results can be selected or discarded to support a predetermined conclusion. The tobacco industry, for example, would publish their own internal research that invariably found minimal adverse health effects of passive smoking.
|
||||
A company that hires researchers to perform a study may require the researchers to sign a nondisclosure agreement before they are funded, by which researchers waive their right to release any results independently and release them only to the sponsor. The sponsor may fund several studies at the same time, suppressing results found contrary to their business interests while publicizing the results that support their interests. Indeed, a review of pharmaceutical studies revealed that research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published, but the drug-company-funded research that was published was more likely to report outcomes favorable to the sponsor.
|
||||
A double-blind study with only objective measures is less likely to be biased to support a given conclusion. However, the researchers or the sponsors still have opportunities to skew the results by discarding or ignoring undesirable data, qualitatively characterizing the results, and ultimately deciding whether to publish at all. Also, not all studies are possible to conduct double-blind.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Publication bias ===
|
||||
|
||||
Scientist researcher Anders Sandberg writes that funding bias may be a form of publication bias. Because it is easier to publish positive results than inconclusive or no results, positive results may be correlated with being positive for the sponsor.
|
||||
Outcome reporting bias is related to publication bias and selection bias, in which multiple outcomes are measured but only the significant outcomes are reported, while insignificant or unfavorable outcomes are ignored.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
=== Selection of subjects or comparators ===
|
||||
|
||||
Selection bias may result in a non-representative population of test subjects in spite of best efforts to obtain a representative sample. Even a double-blind study may be subject to biased selection of dependent variables, population (via inclusion and exclusion criteria), sample size, statistical methods, or inappropriate comparators, any of which can bias the outcome of a study to favor a particular conclusion.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Examples ==
|
||||
A 1996 study on the effects of nicotine on cognitive performance revealed that findings of nicotine or smoking improving performance were more likely to be published by scientists who acknowledged tobacco industry support.
|
||||
A 1998 study found that review articles were 90 times more likely to conclude that passive smoking is not harmful when funded by the tobacco industry.
|
||||
A 2003 study of published research on antidepressants found that studies sponsored by manufacturers of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and newer antidepressants tended to favor their products over alternatives when compared to non-industry-funded studies. Also, modelling studies funded by industry were more favorable to industry than studies funded by non-industry sponsors. In general, studies funded by drug companies are four times more likely to favor the drug under trial than studies funded by other sponsors.
|
||||
A 2006 review of experimental studies examining the health effects of cell phone use found that studies funded exclusively by industry were least likely to report a statistically significant result.
|
||||
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) determined in 2008 that the bisphenol A (BPA) in plastic containers is safe when leached into food, citing chemical industry studies. Independent research studies reached different conclusions, with over 90 percent of them finding health effects from low doses of BPA.
|
||||
Two opposing commercial sponsors can be at odds with the published findings of research they sponsor. A 2008 Duke University study on rats, funded by the Sugar Association, found adverse effects of consuming the artificial sweetener Splenda. The manufacturer, Johnson & Johnson subsidiary McNeil Nutritionals LLC, responded by sponsoring its own team of experts to refute the study.
|
||||
In 2016, an analysis of studies exploring health effects of sugary soda consumption published between 2001 and 2016 found a 100% probability that a study was funded by sugar-sweetened beverage companies if it found no link between sugar-sweetened beverage consumption and poorer metabolic health. Only 2.9% of studies that found sugary beverages linked to higher rates of diabetes and obesity were underwritten by the sugar-sweetened beverage industry (see also sugar marketing). The authors concluded "This industry seems to be manipulating contemporary scientific processes to create controversy and advance their business interests at the expense of the public's health.”
|
||||
A 2017 Cochrane review analysis of outcomes of studies pertaining to drugs and medical devices revealed that manufacturing company sponsorship "leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources."
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Advocacy group
|
||||
Conflict of interest
|
||||
Conflicts of interest in academic publishing
|
||||
Metascience
|
||||
Regulatory capture
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
Hilda Bastian (December 2006). "'They would say that, wouldn't they?' A reader's guide to author and sponsor biases in clinical research". J R Soc Med. 99 (12): 611–614. doi:10.1258/jrsm.99.12.611. PMC 1676333. PMID 17139062.
|
||||
Sharon Begley (2013-07-18). "Insight: Science for hire - Trial over plastic exposes disclosure deficit". Reuters.
|
||||
33
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Energy_(magazine)-0.md
Normal file
33
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Energy_(magazine)-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,33 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Infinite Energy (magazine)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_Energy_(magazine)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:25.762897+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Infinite Energy: The Magazine of New Energy Technology, more commonly referred to simply as Infinite Energy, is a bi-monthly magazine published in New Hampshire that details theories and experiments concerning alternative energy, new science and new physics. The phrase "new energy" in the subtitle is a euphemism for perpetual motion. The magazine was founded by Eugene Mallove, who was its editor-in-chief, and is owned by the non-profit New Energy Foundation. It was established in 1994 as Cold Fusion magazine and changed its name in March 1995.
|
||||
Topics of interest include "new hydrogen physics," also called cold fusion; vacuum energy, or zero point energy; and so-called "environmental energy" which they define as the attempt to violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics, for example with a perpetual motion machine Archived March 6, 2009, at the Wayback Machine. This is done in pursuit of the founder's commitment to "unearthing new sources of energy and new paradigms in science." The magazine has also published articles and book reviews that are critical of the Big Bang theory that describes the origin of the universe.
|
||||
The magazine had a print run of 3,000, and is available on U.S. newsstands. The issues ranged in size from 48 to 100 pages.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
Infinite Energy was founded by Dr. Eugene Mallove, a former chief science writer at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), in response to what he and other proponents viewed as the premature dismissal of cold fusion by the mainstream scientific community. The magazine emerged in the aftermath of the 1989 cold fusion controversy, when chemists Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons announced they had achieved nuclear fusion at room temperature—an extraordinary claim that drew global attention but was ultimately rejected by most physicists due to irreproducible results and methodological flaws.
|
||||
Mallove, disillusioned by what he perceived as scientific misconduct and suppression of promising research, resigned from MIT and became one of the most vocal defenders of cold fusion, or what became known in later years as low-energy nuclear reactions (LENR). He launched Infinite Energy to serve as a platform for the continued exploration of LENR, alternative energy technologies, and unconventional scientific ideas that struggled to find a place in mainstream journals.
|
||||
Backed by the non-profit New Energy Foundation, the magazine was published from Concord, New Hampshire, and quickly became a hub for the cold fusion community, featuring articles, experimental reports, interviews, and editorials advocating for open inquiry and challenging the boundaries of accepted science. Over the years, Infinite Energy also covered topics such as zero-point energy, over-unity devices, and breakthrough propulsion concepts, appealing to a niche readership interested in revolutionary, albeit controversial, scientific developments.
|
||||
Despite widespread skepticism from the broader scientific establishment, Infinite Energy persisted for decades, buoyed by a dedicated community of researchers and enthusiasts. The magazine's existence reflects the enduring appeal of cold fusion and the broader tension between scientific orthodoxy and fringe innovation.
|
||||
In the 2000s, the editorship was taken over by György Egely; more recently Bill Zebuhr was writing Editorials. Issue 167 (March - June 2024) is the last extant magazine published.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
Charles Platt, writing for Wired in 1998, described the magazine as "a wild grab bag of eye-popping assertions and evangelistic rants against the establishment", though conceding that "at the same time, buried among the far-fetched claims were rigorous reports from credentialed scientists".
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Official website
|
||||
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogating_Ethnography-0.md
Normal file
18
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogating_Ethnography-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Interrogating Ethnography"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interrogating_Ethnography"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:26.875616+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Interrogating Ethnography: Why Evidence Matters is a 2017 book by Steven Lubet of Northwestern University Law School, critiquing methods used in the discipline of ethnography. Writing in Contexts, Syid Ali of Long Island University called it "an essential critique of the most public-facing product sociology has to offer."
|
||||
Interrogating Ethnography, which criticizes ethnographers for the practice of changing the name of the area they study, is part of the Replication crisis. But it is largely a critique of ethnography methodology when it relies on the narratives of interviewees with no attempt to verify assertions of fact.
|
||||
Lubet began the project of writing this book after reading and publishing a notable critique of the use of evidence Alice Goffman's controversial 2014 book On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City, That critique led him to read and attempt to verify "more than 50 ethnographic monographs and an equivalent number of articles. Focusing on sociologists’ studies of American cities... (and checking) facts that could be documented — or not... by consulting experts and pulling public records."
|
||||
According to the Chronicle of Higher Education, the book "has touched off a debate about what ethnographers might learn from legal scholars, and vice versa.
|
||||
The book's reception by ethnographers has been mixed.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-0.md
Normal file
29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Luddite"
|
||||
chunk: 1/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:28.028262+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Luddites were members of a 19th-century movement of English textile workers who opposed the use of certain types of automated machinery due to concerns relating to worker pay and output quality. They often destroyed the machines in organised raids. Members of the group referred to themselves as Luddites, self-described followers of "Ned Ludd", a legendary weaver whose name was used as a pseudonym in threatening letters to mill owners and government officials.
|
||||
The Luddite movement began in Nottingham, England, and spread to the North West and Yorkshire between 1811 and 1816. Mill and factory owners took to shooting protesters and eventually the movement was suppressed by legal and military force, which included execution and penal transportation of accused and convicted Luddites.
|
||||
Over time, the term has been used to refer to those opposed to the introduction of new technologies.
|
||||
|
||||
== Etymology ==
|
||||
The name Luddite ( LUD-ite) occurs in the movement's writings as early as 1811. The movement utilised the eponym of Ned Ludd, an apocryphal apprentice who allegedly smashed two stocking frames in 1779 after being criticised and instructed to change his method. The name often appears as Captain, General, or King Ludd. Different versions of the legends place his residence in Anstey, near Leicester, or Sherwood Forest.
|
||||
|
||||
== History ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Background ===
|
||||
In the 18th century, occupations that arose from the growth of trade and shipping in ports, also known as "domestic" manufacturers, were notorious for precarious employment prospects. Underemployment was chronic during this period, and it was common practice to retain a larger workforce than was typically necessary for insurance against labour shortages in boom times.
|
||||
Moreover, the organisation of manufacture by merchant capitalists in the textile industry was inherently unstable. While the financiers' capital was still largely invested in raw materials, it was easy to increase commitment when trade was good and almost as easy to cut back when times were bad. Merchant capitalists lacked the incentive of later factory owners, whose capital was invested in buildings and plants, to maintain a steady rate of production and return on fixed capital. The combination of seasonal variations in wage rates and violent short-term fluctuations springing from harvests and war produced periodic outbreaks of violence.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Historical precedents ===
|
||||
The machine-breaking of the Luddites followed from previous outbreaks of sabotage in the English textile industry, especially in the hosiery and woollen trades. Organised action by stockingers had occurred at various times since 1675. In Lancashire, new cotton spinning technologies were met with violent resistance in 1768 and 1779. These new inventions produced textiles faster and cheaper because they could be operated by less-skilled, low-wage labourers. These struggles sometimes resulted in government suppression, via acts of Parliament such as the Protection of Stocking Frames, etc. Act 1788.
|
||||
Periodic uprisings relating to asset prices also occurred in other contexts in the century before Luddism. Irregular rises in food prices provoked the Keelmen to riot in the port of Tyne in 1710 and tin miners to steal from granaries at Falmouth in 1727. There was a rebellion in Northumberland and Durham in 1740, and an assault on Quaker corn dealers in 1756.
|
||||
Malcolm I. Thomis argued in his 1970 history The Luddites that machine-breaking was one of the very few tactics that workers could use to increase pressure on employers, undermine lower-paid competing workers, and create solidarity among workers. "These attacks on machines did not imply any necessary hostility to machinery as such; machinery was just a conveniently exposed target against which an attack could be made." Communist Historian Eric Hobsbawm has called their machine wrecking "collective bargaining by riot", which had been a tactic used in Britain since the Restoration because manufactories were scattered throughout the country, and that made it impractical to hold large-scale strikes. An agricultural variant of Luddism occurred during the widespread Swing Riots of 1830 in southern and eastern England, centring on breaking threshing machines.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Peak activity: 1811–1817 ===
|
||||
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-1.md
Normal file
22
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Luddite"
|
||||
chunk: 2/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:28.028262+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
The Luddite movement emerged during the harsh economic climate of the Napoleonic Wars, which saw a rise in difficult working conditions in the new textile factories paired with decreasing birth rates and a rise in education standards in England and Wales. Luddites were not opposed to the use of machines per se (many were skilled operators in the textile industry); they attacked manufacturers who were trying to circumvent standard labour practices of the time. The movement began in Arnold, Nottinghamshire, on 11 March 1811 and spread rapidly throughout England over the following two years. The British economy suffered greatly in 1810 to 1812, especially in terms of high unemployment and inflation. The causes included the high cost of the wars with Napoleon, Napoleon's Continental System of economic warfare, and escalating conflict with the United States. The crisis led to widespread protest and violence, but the middle classes and upper classes strongly supported the government, which used the army to suppress all working-class unrest, especially the Luddite movement.
|
||||
The Luddites met at night on the moors surrounding industrial towns to practise military-like drills and manoeuvres. Their main areas of operation began in Nottinghamshire in November 1811, followed by the West Riding of Yorkshire in early 1812, and then Lancashire by March 1813. They wrecked specific types of machinery that posed a threat to the particular industrial interests in each region. In the Midlands, these were the "wide" knitting frames used to make cheap and inferior lace articles. In the North West, weavers sought to eliminate the steam-powered looms threatening wages in the cotton trade. In Yorkshire, workers opposed the use of shearing frames and gig mills to finish woollen cloth.
|
||||
Many Luddite groups were highly organised and pursued machine-breaking as one of several tools for achieving specific political ends. In addition to the raids, Luddites coordinated public demonstrations and the mailing of letters to local industrialists and government officials. These letters explained their reasons for destroying the machinery and threatened further action if the use of "obnoxious" machines continued. The writings of Midlands Luddites often justified their demands through the legitimacy of the Company of Framework Knitters, a recognised public body that already openly negotiated with masters through named representatives. In North West England, textile workers lacked these long-standing trade institutions and their letters composed an attempt to achieve recognition as a united body of tradespeople. As such, they were more likely to include petitions for governmental reforms, such as increased minimum wages and the cessation of child labour. Northwestern Luddites were also more likely to use radical language linking their movement to that of American and French revolutionaries. In Yorkshire, the letter-writing campaign shifted to more violent threats against local authorities viewed as complicit in the use of offensive machinery to exert greater commercial control over the labour market.
|
||||
In Yorkshire, the croppers (highly skilled workers who trimmed the nap from fabric to produce smooth, finished cloth) faced mass unemployment due to the introduction of cropping machines by Enoch Taylor of Marsden. This sparked the Luddite movement among the croppers of Yorkshire, who used a hammer dubbed "Enoch" to break the frames of the cropping machines. They called it Enoch to mock Enoch Taylor, and when they broke the frames they purportedly shouted "Enoch made them, and Enoch shall break them."
|
||||
Luddites clashed with government troops at Burton's Mill in Middleton and at Westhoughton Mill, both in Lancashire. The Luddites and their supporters anonymously sent death threats to, and possibly attacked, magistrates and food merchants. Activists smashed Heathcote's lace making machine in Loughborough in 1816. He and other industrialists had secret chambers constructed in their buildings that could be used as hiding places during an attack.
|
||||
In 1817 Jeremiah Brandreth, an unemployed Nottingham stockinger and probable ex-Luddite, led the Pentrich Rising. While this was a general uprising unrelated to machinery, it can be viewed as the last major Luddite act.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Government response ===
|
||||
12,000 government troops, most of them belonging to militia or yeomanry units, were involved in suppression of Luddite activity, which historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote was a larger number than the army that the Duke of Wellington led into Portugal in 1808 during the Peninsular War. Four Luddites, led by a man named George Mellor, ambushed and assassinated mill owner William Horsfall of Ottiwells Mill in Marsden, West Yorkshire, at Crosland Moor in Huddersfield. Horsfall had remarked that he would "Ride up to his saddle in Luddite blood". Mellor fired the fatal shot to Horsfall's groin, and all four men were arrested. One of the men, Benjamin Walker, turned informant, and the other three were hanged. Lord Byron denounced what he considered to be the plight of the working class, the government's inane policies and ruthless repression in the House of Lords on 27 February 1812:
|
||||
|
||||
I have been in some of the most oppressed provinces of Turkey; but never, under the most despotic of infidel governments, did I behold such squalid wretchedness as I have seen since my return, in the very heart of a Christian country.
|
||||
Government officials sought to suppress the Luddite movement with a mass trial at York in January 1813, following the attack on Cartwrights Mill at Rawfolds near Cleckheaton. The government charged over 60 men, including Mellor and his companions, with various crimes in connection with Luddite activities. While some of those charged were actual Luddites, many had no connection to the movement. Although the proceedings were legitimate jury trials, many were abandoned due to lack of evidence and 30 men were acquitted. These trials were intended to act as show trials to deter other Luddites from continuing their activities. The harsh sentences of those found guilty, which included execution and penal transportation, quickly ended the movement. Parliament made "machine breaking" (i.e. industrial sabotage) a capital crime with the Destruction of Stocking Frames, etc. Act 1812. Lord Byron opposed this legislation, becoming one of the few prominent defenders of the Luddites after the treatment of the defendants at the York trials.
|
||||
37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-2.md
Normal file
37
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Luddite"
|
||||
chunk: 3/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:28.028262+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Legacy ==
|
||||
The Luddites (specifically the croppers, those who operated cropping machinery) are memorialised in the Yorkshire-area folk song "The Cropper Lads", which has been recorded by artists including Lou Killen and Maddy Prior. The croppers were very highly skilled and highly paid before the introduction of cropping machinery, and thus had more to lose and more reason to rebel against the factory owners' use of machinery. Another traditional song which celebrates the Luddites is the song "The Triumph of General Ludd", which was recorded by Chumbawamba for their 1988 album English Rebel Songs.
|
||||
|
||||
== Modern usage ==
|
||||
Nowadays, the term "Luddite" is often used to describe someone who either opposes or is resistant to the use of new technologies.
|
||||
In 1956, during a British Parliamentary debate, a Labour spokesman said that "organised workers were by no means wedded to a 'Luddite Philosophy'." By 2006, the term neo-Luddism had emerged to describe opposition to many forms of technology. According to a manifesto drawn up by the Second Luddite Congress (April 1996; Barnesville, Ohio), neo-Luddism is "a leaderless movement of passive resistance to consumerism and the increasingly bizarre and frightening technologies of the Computer Age".
|
||||
The term "Luddite fallacy" is used by economists about the fear that technological unemployment inevitably generates structural unemployment and is consequently macroeconomically injurious. If a technological innovation reduces necessary labour inputs in a given sector, then the industry-wide cost of production falls, which lowers the competitive price and increases the equilibrium supply point that, theoretically, will require an increase in aggregate labour inputs. During the 20th century and the first decade of the 21st century, the dominant view among economists has been that belief in long-term technological unemployment was indeed a fallacy. More recently, there has been increased support for the view that the benefits of automation are not equally distributed.
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
Neo-Luddism
|
||||
Postdevelopment theory
|
||||
Ted Kaczynski
|
||||
Ruddington Framework Knitters' Museum – features a Luddite gallery
|
||||
Simple living
|
||||
Swing Riots
|
||||
Technophobia
|
||||
Turner Controversy – return to pre-industrial methods of production
|
||||
|
||||
== Explanatory notes ==
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== Sources ==
|
||||
Ford, Martin R. (2009), The Lights in the Tunnel: Automation, Accelerating Technology and the Economy of the Future, Acculant Publishing, ISBN 978-1448659814.
|
||||
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1952). "The Machine Breakers". Past & Present (1): 57–70. doi:10.1093/past/1.1.57. Archived from the original on 13 April 2021. Retrieved 19 September 2012.
|
||||
Jones, Steven E. (2006). Against technology: from the Luddites to Neo-Luddism. CRC Press. ISBN 978-0-415-97868-2.
|
||||
Sale, Kirkpatrick (1995). Rebels against the future: the Luddites and their war on the Industrial Revolution: lessons for the computer age. Basic Books. ISBN 0-201-40718-3.
|
||||
48
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-3.md
Normal file
48
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Luddite"
|
||||
chunk: 4/4
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:28.028262+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
Anderson, Gary M.; Tollison, Robert D. (1986). "Luddism as cartel enforcement". Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE)/Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft. 142 (4): 727–738. JSTOR 40750927.
|
||||
Archer, John E. (2000). "Chapter 4: Industrial Protest". Social unrest and popular protest in England, 1780–1840. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-57656-7.
|
||||
Bailey, Brian J. (1998). The Luddite Rebellion. NYU Press. ISBN 0-8147-1335-1.
|
||||
Darvall, F. (1934). Popular Disturbances and Public Order in Regency England. Oxford University Press.
|
||||
Dinwiddy, John (1979). "Luddism and politics in the northern counties". Social History. 4 (1): 33–63. doi:10.1080/03071027908567438.
|
||||
Fox, Nicols (2003). Against the Machine: The Hidden Luddite History in Literature, Art, and Individual Lives. Island Press. ISBN 1-55963-860-5.
|
||||
Grint, Keith; Woolgar, Steve (1997). "The Luddites: Diablo ex Machina". The machine at work: technology, work, and organization. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-7456-0924-9.
|
||||
Haywood, Ian (2006). "Unruly People: The Spectacular Riot". Bloody Romanticism. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 181–222.
|
||||
Horn, Jeff (2015). "Machine-Breaking and the 'Threat from Below' in Great Britain and France during the Early Industrial Revolution". Crowd actions in Britain and France from the middle ages to the modern world. London: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 165–178.
|
||||
Linebaugh, Peter (2012). Ned Ludd & Queen Mab: machine-breaking, romanticism, and the several commons of 1811–12. PM Press.
|
||||
Linton, David (1992). "The Luddites: How did they get that bad reputation?". Labor History. 33 (4): 529–537. doi:10.1080/00236569200890281.
|
||||
McGaughey, Ewan (2022). "Will Robots Automate Your Job Away? Full Employment, Basic Income, and Economic Democracy". Industrial Law Journal. 51 (3): 511–559. doi:10.1093/indlaw/dwab010. PMC 8344681. SSRN 3044448.
|
||||
Merchant, Brian (2023). Blood in the Machine. Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 9780316487740.
|
||||
Munger, Frank (1981). "Suppression of Popular Gatherings in England, 1800–1830". American Journal of Legal History. 25 (2): 111–140. doi:10.2307/844630. JSTOR 844630. Archived from the original on 28 April 2019.
|
||||
Navickas, Katrina (2005). "The search for 'general Ludd': The mythology of Luddism". Social History. 30 (3): 281–295. doi:10.1080/03071020500185406.
|
||||
O'Rourke, Kevin Hjortshøj; Rahman, Ahmed S.; Taylor, Alan M. (2013). "Luddites, the industrial revolution, and the demographic transition". Journal of Economic Growth. 18 (4): 373–409. doi:10.1007/s10887-013-9096-y. JSTOR 42635331.
|
||||
Pallas, Stephen J. (2018). "'The Hell that Bigots Frame': Queen Mab, Luddism, and the Rhetoric of Working-Class Revolution". Journal for the Study of Radicalism. 12 (2): 55–80. doi:10.14321/jstudradi.12.2.0055. JSTOR 10.14321/jstudradi.12.2.0055.
|
||||
Patterson, A. Temple (April 1948). "Luddism, Hampden Clubs, and Trade Unions in Leicestershire, 1816–17". English Historical Review. 63 (247): 170–188. doi:10.1093/ehr/LXIII.CCXLVII.170. JSTOR 556364.
|
||||
Poitras, Geoffrey (2020). "The Luddite trials: Radical suppression and the administration of criminal justice" (PDF). Journal for the Study of Radicalism. 14 (1): 121–166. doi:10.14321/jstudradi.14.1.0121. JSTOR 10.14321/jstudradi.14.1.0121. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 May 2022.
|
||||
Pynchon, Thomas (28 October 1984). "Is It O.K. to Be a Luddite?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 29 March 2021. Retrieved 19 November 2019.
|
||||
Randall, Adrian (2002). Before the Luddites: Custom, Community and Machinery in the English Woollen Industry, 1776–1809. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-89334-3.
|
||||
Rude, George (2005). "Chapter 5, Luddism". The crowd in History, 1730–1848. Serif. ISBN 978-1-897959-47-3.
|
||||
Stöllinger, Roman (November 2018). "The Luddite rebellion: Past and present" (PDF). wiiw Monthly Report. The Vienna Institute for International Economic Studies. pp. 6–11. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 December 2022.
|
||||
Thomis, Malcolm I. (1970). The Luddites: Machine-Breaking in Regency England. Archon Books.
|
||||
Thompson, E. P. (1968). The Making of the English Working Class. Penguin. ISBN 0140210008.
|
||||
Wasserstrom, Jeffrey (1987). "'Civilization' and Its Discontents: The Boxers and Luddites as Heroes and Villains". Theory and Society: 675–707. JSTOR 657679.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Primary sources ===
|
||||
Binfield, Kevin (2004). Writings of the Luddites. JHU Press. ISBN 0-8018-7612-5.
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Luddite Bicentenary – Comprehensive chronicle of the Luddite uprisings Archived 14 February 2015 at the Wayback Machine
|
||||
The Luddite Link – Comprehensive historical resources for the original West Yorkshire Luddites, University of Huddersfield
|
||||
Luddism and the Neo-Luddite Reaction by Martin Ryder, University of Colorado at Denver School of Education
|
||||
The Luddites and the Combination Acts Archived 15 September 2006 at the Wayback Machine from the Marxists Internet Archive
|
||||
The Luddites (1988) Archived 26 November 2019 at the Wayback Machine – Thames Television drama-documentary about the West Riding Luddites.
|
||||
@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Miracles (Insane Clown Posse song)"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracles_(Insane_Clown_Posse_song)"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:31.403442+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
"Miracles" is a song written by the American hip hop duo Insane Clown Posse and record producer Mike E. Clark. It was released as a single from the duo's 2009 album Bang! Pow! Boom!. A music video was produced for the 2010 reissue of the album, dubbed the "Nuclear Edition". The song's lyrics focus on things experienced in everyday life, displaying an appreciation for them, and perceiving them as miraculous and outside of the laws of physics.
|
||||
The song sparked a number of Internet memes, and was parodied on Saturday Night Live and by Lonely Island in the song "Incredible Thoughts".
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Music and lyrics ==
|
||||
Inspiration for the song's lyrics came via the Internet generation and group members Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope raising children. In response to both modern jadedness and their children experiencing wonders of the world for the first time, the group wanted to write a song about natural phenomena humans experience in life which often go unacknowledged. The closing lyrics encourage listeners to take time to look at the world and "appreciate the things that life has to offer". According to Violent J, "What's a shame is how people walk around blind to it all. They lost their spirit about everything. If you can't even see the miracle in animals, then you must have never truly loved a pet." Despite verbally calling scientists "liars" in the song, he afterward stated that what he meant was that scientific explanations can sometimes kill the intriguing mysteries of the world, such as how ancient pyramids were made. Violent J admits that the song's lyrics discuss "things [... that] may not be actual miracles. They may have scientific facts explaining them [...] But nonetheless, these things are still incredible [...] and they should be appreciated." He added that the group's use of the word 'miracle' was intended to mean "something fuckin' amazing and incredible, [... a] special, awesome event, [...] a great, wonderful thing."
|
||||
The lyrics focus on introspective themes which critics considered to be uncommon in Insane Clown Posse's music; however, Violent J states that these themes are important in the duo's work, and reveal their depth. In response to accusations that the group has changed its style and gone soft, Violent J calls the song "classic ICP," noting that the group has always included one or two deep and meaningful songs on every album, and that this is just the first time that they've created a video for one of those songs. Several reviewers have suggested that the song contains an anti-science message, as the song literally states that scientists profess lies. Violent J disputes the claim, asserting that "the [song's] concept is about appreciating everything in this world. It's not about God; [...] religion; [.. or] science." Joseph Laycock of Religion Dispatches suggests that rather than rejecting science, the song disapproves of disenchantment.
|
||||
The song's music is built around an ascending synthesizer melody, and climaxes with an electric guitar solo performed by Mike E. Clark, and beatboxing by Shaggy 2 Dope.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Music video ==
|
||||
|
||||
The music video for the song debuted on April 6, 2010, as part of the "Nuclear Edition" reissue of Bang! Pow! Boom!. The video's green screen sequences were directed by Paul Andresen, with post-production being completed in Michigan. The video has received over 19 million views on YouTube.
|
||||
On April 17, Saturday Night Live aired a sketch that parodied the "Miracles" music video. In the sketch, fictional personalities DJ Supersoak (played by Jason Sudeikis) and Lil' Blaster (played by Nasim Pedrad) debuted a fictional music video by the Thrilla Killa Klownz called "Magical Mysteries" as part of the Under Underground Records' "Underground Rock Minute". In the fictional video, Ryan Phillippe and Bobby Moynihan rap about things such as "where the sun hides at night" and how blankets work. Saturday Night Live had previously parodied Psychopathic Records in 2009.
|
||||
Insane Clown Posse called the "Miracles" parody "a huge honor". Violent J called the parody "off the hook hilarious". Shaggy noted that Coolio initially reacted unfavorably towards "Amish Paradise", "Weird Al" Yankovic's parody of the rapper's song "Gangsta's Paradise", and stated "If Weird Al wanted to do one of our songs, I'd be like, 'Hell yeah.' To me, it's the same thing with Saturday Night Live."
|
||||
The music video also appeared in the webcomic Homestuck.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Reception ==
|
||||
Adam Graham of The Detroit News disliked the song, writing that "hearing this song makes you wish ICP would stick to serial killing". Slate writer Jonah Weiner praised the song's music, but panned its lyrics. The A.V. Club writer Nathan Rabin described the song as "fucking insane". A Chicago Tribune critic mocked the song's lyrics saying, "I'm glad that when my kids get strep throat, their doctor doesn't say, '(Bleeping) antibiotics, how do they work?'" James Montgomery described the music video as "a psychedelic special effects extravaganza that is sometimes really literal... and sometimes just confusing." Pitchfork included "Miracles" on their list of The Top Music Videos of 2010.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== "Magnets" meme ==
|
||||
The song's lyric "Fucking magnets, how do they work?" became an Internet meme. The following line, "and I don't want to talk to a scientist, y'all motherfuckers lyin', and gettin' me pissed" also drew ire from scientifically-minded Internet users. Scientists created blog entries to teach Insane Clown Posse fans and even did so in person.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
"Miracles" on YouTube
|
||||
Decade-long retrospective on the song from New York
|
||||
20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-0.md
Normal file
20
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 1/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Paul Karl Feyerabend (; FY-ur-ah-bent; German: [ˈfaɪɐˌʔaːbm̩t]; January 13, 1924 – February 11, 1994) was an Austrian philosopher best known for his work in the philosophy of science. He started his academic career as lecturer in the philosophy of science at the University of Bristol (1955–1958); afterward, he moved to the University of California, Berkeley, where he taught for three decades (1958–1989). At various points in his life, he held joint appointments at the University College London (1967–1970), the London School of Economics (1967), the FU Berlin (1968), Yale University (1969), the University of Auckland (1972, 1975), the University of Sussex (1974), and the ETH Zurich (1980–1990). He gave lectures and lecture series at the University of Minnesota (1958–1962), Stanford University (1967), the University of Kassel (1977), and the University of Trento (1992).
|
||||
Feyerabend's most famous work is Against Method (1975), wherein he argues that there are no universally valid methodological rules for scientific inquiry. He also wrote on topics related to the politics of science in several essays and in his book Science in a Free Society (1978). Feyerabend's later works include Wissenschaft als Kunst (Science as Art) (1984), Farewell to Reason (1987), Three Dialogues on Knowledge (1991), and Conquest of Abundance (released posthumously in 1999), which collect essays from the 1970s until Feyerabend's death. The uncompleted draft of an earlier work was released posthumously in 2009 as Naturphilosophie and translated to English in 2016 as Philosophy of Nature. This work contains Feyerabend's reconstruction of the history of natural philosophy from the Homeric period until the mid-20th century. In these works and others, Feyerabend wrote about numerous issues at the interface between history and philosophy of science and ethics, ancient philosophy, philosophy of art, political philosophy, medicine, and physics. His final work was an autobiography, Killing Time, which he completed on his deathbed. Feyerabend's extensive correspondence and other materials from his Nachlass continue to be published.
|
||||
Feyerabend is recognized as one of the most important 20th-century philosophers of science. In a 2010 poll, he was ranked as the 8th-most significant philosopher of science. He is often mentioned alongside Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and N. R. Hanson as a crucial figure in the historical turn in philosophy of science, and his work on scientific pluralism has been markedly influential on the Stanford School and on much contemporary philosophy of science. Feyerabend was also a significant figure in the sociology of scientific knowledge. His lectures were extremely well-attended, attracting international attention. His multifaceted personality is eloquently summarized in his obituary by Ian Hacking: "Humanists, in my old-fashioned sense, need to be part of both arts and sciences. Paul Feyerabend was a humanist. He was also fun."
|
||||
In line with this humanistic interpretation and the concerns apparent in his later work, the Paul K. Feyerabend Foundation was founded in 2006 in his honor. The Foundation "promotes the empowerment and wellbeing of disadvantaged human communities. By strengthening intra and inter-community solidarity, it strives to improve local capacities, promote the respect of human rights, and sustain cultural and biological diversity." In 1970, the Loyola University of Chicago awarded Feyerabend a Doctor of Humane Letters Degree honoris causa. Asteroid (22356) Feyerabend is named after him.
|
||||
|
||||
== Biography ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Early life ===
|
||||
Feyerabend was born in 1924 in Vienna, Austria. His paternal grandfather was the illegitimate child of a housekeeper, Helena Feierabend, who introduced the 'y' into 'Feyerabend.' His father, originally from Carinthia, was an officer in the merchant marine in World War I in Istria and a civil servant in Vienna until he died due to complications from a stroke. His mother's family came from Stockerau. She was a seamstress and died on July 29, 1943 by suicide. The family lived in a working-class neighborhood (Wolfganggasse) where gypsy musicians, over-the-top relatives, illusionists, sudden accidents, and heated quarrels were part of everyday life. In his autobiography Feyerabend remembers a childhood in which magic and mysterious events were separated by dreary 'commonplace' only by a slight change of perspective — a theme later found in his work.
|
||||
Raised Catholic, Feyerabend attended the Realgymnasium, where he excelled as a Vorzugsschüler (top student), especially in physics and mathematics. At 13 he built, with his father, his own telescope, which allowed him to become an observer for the Swiss Institute of Solar Research. He was inspired by his teacher Oswald Thomas and developed a reputation as knowing more than the teachers. A voracious reader, especially of mystery and adventure novels and plays, Feyerabend casually stumbled onto philosophy. Works by Plato, Descartes, and Büchner awoke his interest in the dramatic power of argument. He later encountered philosophy of science through the works of Mach, Eddington, and Dingler and was fascinated by Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra and his depiction of the "lonely man." During high school, Feyerabend also began his lifelong interest in singing. He sang in a choir under Leo Lehner and was later introduced to opera and inspired by performances from George Oeggl and Hans Hotter. He later trained formally under the tutelage of Adolf Vogel and others.
|
||||
17
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-1.md
Normal file
17
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-1.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 2/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Nazi Occupation of Austria and World War II ===
|
||||
Feyerabend's parents were both welcoming of the Anschluss. His mother was entranced by Hitler's voice and demeanor and his father was similarly impressed by Hitler's charisma and later joined the Nazi Party. Feyerabend himself was unmoved by the Anschluss or World War II, which he saw as an inconvenience that got in the way of reading and astronomy. Feyerabend was in the Hitler Youth as a part of compulsory policies and sometimes rebelled, praising the British or claiming he had to leave a meeting to attend Mass, and sometimes conformed, bringing in members who missed meetings. After the war, Feyerabend recounts that he "did not accept the aims of Nazism" and that he "hardly knew what they were." Later, he wondered why he did not see the occupation and war as moral problems. They were just "inconveniences" and his reactions—recalled with uncommon honesty—were suggested by accidental moods and circumstances rather than by a "well defined outlook".
|
||||
|
||||
“Looking back, I notice a rather unstable combination of contrariness and a tendency to conform. A critical judgement or a feeling of unease could be silenced or turned into its opposite by an almost imperceptible counter-force. It was like a fragile cloud dispersed by heat. On other occasions I would not listen to reason or Nazi common sense and would cling to unpopular ideas. This ambivalence (which survived for many years and was weakened only recently) seems to have been connected with my ambivalence towards people: I wanted to be close to them, but I also wanted to be left alone.”
|
||||
After graduating from high school, in April 1942 Feyerabend was drafted into the German Arbeitsdienst (working service), received basic training in Pirmasens, and was assigned to a unit in Quelerne en Bas, near Brest. He described the work he did during that period as monotonous: "we moved around in the countryside, dug ditches, and filled them up again." After a short leave he volunteered for officer school. In his autobiography he writes that he hoped the war would be over by the time he had finished his education as an officer. This turned out not to be the case. From December 1943 on, he served as an officer on the northern part of the Eastern Front, was decorated with an Iron cross, and attained the rank of lieutenant. When the German army started its retreat from the advancing Red Army, Feyerabend was hit by three bullets while directing traffic. One hit him in the spine which left him wheel-chaired for a year and partially paralyzed for the rest of his life. He later learned to walk with a crutch, but was left impotent and plagued by intermittent bouts of severe pain for the rest of his life.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Post-WWII, PhD, and early career in England ===
|
||||
76
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-10.md
Normal file
76
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-10.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 11/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== In philosophy ===
|
||||
While the immediate academic reception of Feyerabend's most read text, Against Method, was largely negative, Feyerabend is recognized today as one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th Century. Feyerabend's arguments against a universal method have become largely accepted, and are often taken for granted by many philosophers of science in the 21st century. His arguments for pluralism moved the topic into the mainstream and his use of historical case studies were influential in the development of the History and Philosophy of Science (HPS) as an independent discipline. His arguments against reductionism were also influential on John Dupré, Cliff Hooker, and Alan Chalmers. He was also one of the intellectual precursors of social constructivism and science and technology studies, although he participated little in either field during his lifetime.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Outside philosophy ===
|
||||
Feyerabend's analysis of the Galileo affair, where he claims the Church was "on the right track" for censuring Galileo on moral grounds and were empirically correct, was quoted with approval by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict XVI) in a speech in 1990. In his autobiography, Feyerabend recalls a conversation with Stephen Jay Gould, in 1991, when Gould stated that Against Method's arguments for pluralism motivated him to pursue research on punctuated equilibrium. Feyerabend's work was also influential for several physicists who felt empowered to experiment with approaches different from those of their supervisors as well on many social scientists who were under great pressure to conform to the 'standards' of the natural sciences.
|
||||
Feyerabend's lectures were extremely popular and well-attended. They were often received positively as entertaining, provocative, and funny. The writer Daniele Bolelli, in his book On the Warrior's Path quotes Feyerabend, highlighting the similarities between his epistemology and Bruce Lee's worldview. Feyerabend's concept of incommensurability was influential in the radical critical approach of Donald Ault in his extensive critical assessment of William Blake's work, especially in Narrative Unbound: Re-Visioning William Blake's The Four Zoas.
|
||||
For the centennial of Feyerabend's birth, in 2024, there was a series of conferences, workshops, publications, experimental art, song recitals, and theatre pieces planned in honor of his life and works.
|
||||
|
||||
== Selected bibliography ==
|
||||
Feyerabend's full bibliography: "The Works of P. K. Feyerabend".
|
||||
|
||||
=== Books ===
|
||||
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1975). London: Verso Books.ISBN 1-84467-442-8.
|
||||
The first, 1970 edition, is available for download in pdf form from the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science. Follow this link path: Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science > 4. Analyses of Theories & Methods of Physics and Psychology. 1970. Editors: M. Radner and S. Winokur > Open Access > Under the "Whoops!" message click 'Download'
|
||||
The third edition, released in 1993, is the most widely available copy.
|
||||
Science in a Free Society (1978). London: Verso Books. ISBN 0-8052-7043-4
|
||||
Science as Art (1984). Bari: Laterza. ISBN 2-226-13562-6
|
||||
Farewell to Reason (1987). London: Verso Books. ISBN 0-86091-184-5, 0860918963
|
||||
Three Dialogues on Knowledge (1991). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell Press.ISBN 0-631-17917-8, 0631179186
|
||||
Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend (1995). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-24531-4, 0226245322
|
||||
Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction versus the Richness of Being (1999). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-24533-0, 0226245349
|
||||
Philosophy of Nature, Posthumously published (2016). Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN 978-0-7456-5159-0
|
||||
* Naturphilosophie, Posthumously published (2009). Berlin: Suhrkamp Verlag. Helmut Heit and Eric Oberheim (Eds.). ISBN 3-518-58514-2.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Collected volumes ===
|
||||
Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical papers, Volume 1 (1981). P.K. Feyerabend (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-22897-2, 0521316421
|
||||
Problems of Empiricism: Philosophical Papers, Volume 2 (1981). P.K. Feyerabend (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-23964-8, 0521316413
|
||||
Knowledge, Science and Relativism: Philosophical Papers, Volume 3 (1999). J. Preston (ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-64129-2
|
||||
Physics and Philosophy: Philosophical Papers, Volume 4 (2015). S. Gattei and J. Agassi (eds.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-88130-7
|
||||
|
||||
=== Correspondences and lectures ===
|
||||
For and Against Method: Including Lakatos's Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence with Imre Lakatos (1999). M. Motterlini (ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-46774-0, 0226467759
|
||||
The Tyranny of Science (2011). Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-5189-5, 0745651909.
|
||||
Feyerabend's Formative Years. Volume 1. Feyerabend and Popper: Correspondence and Unpublished Papers (2020). New York: Springer Press. ISBN 978-3-030-00960-1, 978-3030009601
|
||||
|
||||
=== Articles ===
|
||||
"Linguistic Arguments and Scientific Method". Telos 03 (Spring 1969). New York: Telos Press, Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical papers, Volume 1 (1981), ISBN 0-521-22897-2, 0521316421
|
||||
"How To Defend Society Against Science". Radical Philosophy, no. 11, Summer 03 1975. The Galilean Library, Introductory Readings in the Philosophy of Science edited by E. D. Klemke (1998), ISBN 1-57392-240-4
|
||||
|
||||
== See also ==
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
|
||||
== Sources ==
|
||||
Feyerabend, Paul (1995). Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. University of Chicago Press.
|
||||
Feyerabend, Paul (1987). Farewell to Reason. Verso Books.
|
||||
Feyerabend, Paul (1965). "Reply to Criticism: Comments on Smart, Sellars and Putnam". Proceedings of the Boston Colloquium for the Philosophy of Science.
|
||||
|
||||
== Further reading ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Books ===
|
||||
George Couvalis, Feyerabend's Critique of Foundationalism (1989). London: Avebury Publishing. ISBN 978-1-108-47199-2
|
||||
John Preston, Feyerabend: Philosophy, Science and Society (1997). Cambridge: Polity Press. ISBN 0-7456-1675-5, 0745616763
|
||||
Robert Farrell, Feyerabend and Scientific Values: Tightrope-Walking Rationality (2003). Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4020-1350-8
|
||||
Eric Oberheim, Feyerabend's Philosophy (2006). Berlin: De Gruyter Press. ISBN 3-11-018907-0
|
||||
|
||||
=== Dissertations ===
|
||||
Jamie Shaw, A Pluralism worth Having: Feyerabend's Well-Ordered Science (2018).
|
||||
|
||||
=== Collected volumes ===
|
||||
Gonzalo Munévar (ed.), Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (1991), ISBN 0-7923-1272-4
|
||||
John Preston, Gonzalo Munévar and David Lamb (eds.), The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend (2000), Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512874-5
|
||||
Karim Bschir and Jamie Shaw (eds.), Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays (2021), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-47199-2
|
||||
|
||||
=== Special issues ===
|
||||
Matthew J. Brown and Ian James Kidd (eds.), Reappraising Paul Feyerabend. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, Part A. (2016)
|
||||
38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-11.md
Normal file
38
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-11.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 12/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
=== Individual articles ===
|
||||
Hentschel, Klaus. 1985. "On Feyerabend's Version of 'Mach's Theory of Research and its Relation to Einstein." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 16: 387–394.
|
||||
Zahar, Elie. 1982. "Feyerabend on Observation and Empirical Content." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 33(4): 397–409.
|
||||
Couvalis, George. 1988. "Feyerabend and Laymon on Brownian Motion." Philosophy of Science, 415–421.
|
||||
Thomason, Neil. 1994. "The Power of ARCHED Hypotheses: Feyerabend's Galileo as a Closet Rationalist." The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45(1), 255–264.
|
||||
Preston, John. 1995. "Frictionless Philosophy: Paul Feyerabend and Relativism." History of European Ideas, 963–968.
|
||||
Benvenuto, Sergio. 1995. "Paul K. Feyerabend (1924-1994) - Search for Abundance", Telos, 102: 107-114.
|
||||
Van Fraassen, Bas. 1997. "Sola Experientia?—Feyerabend's Refutation of Classical Empiricism." Philosophy of Science, 64(S4), S385-S395.
|
||||
Farrell, Robert. 2000. "Will the Popperian Feyerabend Please Step Forward: Pluralistic, Popperian Themes in the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend." International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 14(3), 257–266.
|
||||
Oberheim, Eric. 2005. "On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend's Assault on Conceptual Conservativism." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 36(2), 363–390.
|
||||
Brown, Matthew. 2009. "Models and Perspectives on Stage: Remarks on Giere's Scientific Perspectivism." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40, 213–220.
|
||||
Roe, Sarah. 2009. "The Attenuated Ramblings of a Madman: Feyerabend's Anarchy Examined." Polish Journal of Philosophy, 1-20.
|
||||
Tambolo, Luca. 2014. "Pliability and Resistance: Feyerabendian Insights into Sophisticated Realism." European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 4(2), 197–213.
|
||||
Tambolo, Luca. 2015. "A Tale of Three Theories: Feyerabend and Popper on Progress and the Aim of Science." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 51, 33–41.
|
||||
Bschir, Karim. 2015. "Feyerabend and Popper on Theory Proliferation and Anomaly Import: On the Compatibility of Theoretical Pluralism and Critical Rationalism." HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 5(1), 24–55.
|
||||
Shaw, Jamie. 2017. "Was Feyerabend an Anarchist? The Structure(s) of 'Anything Goes'." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 64: 11-21.
|
||||
Shaw, Jamie. 2020. "The Revolt Against Rationalism: Feyerabend's Critical Philosophy." Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 80: 110–122.
|
||||
|
||||
== External links ==
|
||||
|
||||
Zalta, Edward N. (ed.). "Paul Feyerabend". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. ISSN 1095-5054. OCLC 429049174.
|
||||
The Works of Paul K. Feyerabend Chronological and annotated bibliographies, with hyperlinks to digital libraries and web sources (compiled by Matteo Collodel)
|
||||
"Anything goes": Feyerabend and Method Paul Newall, The Galilean Library (2005)
|
||||
Feyerabend and Beyond, an interview by Paul Newall with Feyerabend's student Gonzalo Munévar, The Galilean Library (2005)
|
||||
Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge Analytical Index and the concluding chapter from Against Method (1975)
|
||||
Science and Society: An Exchange Feyerabend in The New York Review of Books, Volume 26, Number 15 · October 11, 1979
|
||||
History of Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science See Book VI on Feyerabend.
|
||||
Now we're done! (It's time for Feyerabend) – OA paper (2018) on the topicality of Feyerabend with subsequent detailed discussion
|
||||
17
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-2.md
Normal file
17
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-2.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 3/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
After getting wounded in action, Feyerabend was hospitalized in and around Weimar where he spent more than a year recovering and where he witnessed the end of the war and Soviet occupation. The mayor of Apolda gave him a job in the education sector and he, then still on two crutches, worked in public entertainment including writing speeches, dialogues, and plays. Later, at the music academy in Weimar, he was granted a scholarship and food stamps and took lessons in Italian, harmony, singing, enunciation, and piano. He also joined the Cultural Association for the Democratic Reform of Germany, the only association he ever joined.
|
||||
As Feyerabend moved back to Vienna, he was permitted to pursue a PhD at the University of Vienna. He originally intended to study physics, astronomy, and mathematics (while continuing to practice singing) but decided to study history and sociology to understand his wartime experiences. He became dissatisfied, however, and soon transferred to physics and studied astronomy, especially observational astronomy and perturbation theory, as well as differential equations, nuclear physics, algebra, and tensor analysis. He took classes with Hans Thirring, Hans Leo Przibram, and Felix Ehrenhaft. He also had a small role in a film directed by G.W. Pabst and joined the Austrian College where he frequented their speaker series in Alpbach. Here, in 1948, Feyerabend met Karl Popper who made a positive impression on him. He was also influenced by the Marxist playwright Bertolt Brecht, who invited him to be his assistant at the East Berlin State Opera, but Feyerabend turned down the offer. A possible reason was Feyerabend's instinctive aversion to group thinking, which, for instance, made him staunchly refuse joining any Marxist Leninist organizations despite having friends there and despite voting communist in the early Austrian election.
|
||||
In Vienna, Feyerabend organized the Kraft Circle, where students and faculty discussed scientific theories (he recalled five meetings about non-Einsteinian interpretations of the Lorentz transformations) and often focused on the problem of the existence of the external world. There, he also met Elizabeth Anscombe who, in turn, led Feyerabend to meet Ludwig Wittgenstein. In the years between 1949 and 1952, Feyerabend traveled in Europe and exchanged with philosophers and scientists, including Niels Bohr. He also married his first wife (Jacqueline, 'to be able to travel together and share hotel rooms'), divorced, and became involved in various romantic affairs, despite his physical impotence. Cycles of amorous excitement, dependence, isolation, and renewed dependence characterized his relations with women for a good part of his life. He drew great pleasure from opera, which he could attend even five days a week, and from singing (he resumed his lessons even if his crutch excluded an operatic career). Attending opera and singing (he had an excellent tenor voice) remained constant passions throughout his life. In 1951, he earned his doctorate with a thesis on basic statements (Zur Theorie der Basissätze) under Victor Kraft's supervision.
|
||||
In 1952-53, thanks to a British Council scholarship, he continued his studies at the London School of Economics where he focused on Bohm's and von Neumann's work in quantum mechanics and on Wittgenstein's later works, including Remarks on the Foundations of Mathematics and Philosophical Investigations. He also attended Popper's lectures on logic and scientific method and became convinced that induction was irrational. During this time, he developed an early version of his theory of incommensurability, which he thought was a triviality, and was encouraged to develop it further by Popper, H.L.A. Hart, Peter Geach, and Georg Henrik von Wright. He met many others including J.O. Wisdom, A. I. Sabra, Joseph Agassi, and Martin Buber. After his return to Vienna, Feyerabend met often with Viktor Frankl and with Arthur Pap, who offered him a position as his research assistant at the University of Vienna. Thanks to Pap, he became acquainted with Herbert Feigl. During this time, Feyerabend worked on the German translation of Popper's The Open Society and Its Enemies and often met with Herbert Feigl and Philipp Frank. Franck argued that Aristotle was a better empiricist than Copernicus, an argument that became influential on Feyerabend's primary case study in Against Method.
|
||||
In 1955, Feyerabend successfully applied for a lectureship at the University of Bristol with letters of reference from Karl Popper and Erwin Schrödinger and started his academic career. In 1956, he met Mary O’Neill, who became his second wife – another passionate love affair that soon ended in separation. After presenting a paper on the measurement problem at the 1957 symposium of the Colston Research Society in Bristol, Feyerabend was invited to the University of Minnesota by Michael Scriven. There, he exchanged with Herbert Feigl, Ernst Nagel, Wilfred Sellars, Hilary Putnam, and Adolf Grünbaum. Soon afterwards, he met Gilbert Ryle who said of Feyerabend that he was "clever and mischievous like a barrel of monkeys."
|
||||
|
||||
=== Berkeley, Zurich and retirement ===
|
||||
15
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-3.md
Normal file
15
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-3.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 4/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Feyerabend's primary academic appointment was at the University of California at Berkeley. While he was hired there in 1958, he spent part of his first years in the United States at the University of Minnesota, working closely with Herbert Feigl and Paul Meehl after rejecting a job offer from Cornell University. In California, he met and befriended Rudolf Carnap, whom he described as a "wonderful person, gentle, understanding, not at all as dry as would appear from some (not all) of his writings", and Alfred Tarski, among others. He also married for a third time. At Berkeley, Feyerabend mostly lectured on general philosophy and philosophy of science. During the student revolution, he also lectured on revolutionaries (Lenin, Mao, Mill, and Cohn-Bendit). He often invited students and outsiders, including Lenny Bruce and Malcolm X, to guest lecture on a variety of issues including gay rights, racism, and witchcraft. He supported the students but did not support student strikes. John Searle attempted to get Feyerabend fired from his position for hosting lectures off-campus.
|
||||
As Feyerabend was highly marketable in academia and personally restless, he kept accepting and leaving university appointments while holding more 'stable' positions in Berkeley and London. For instance, starting in 1968, he spent two terms at Yale, which he describes as boring, feeling that most there did not have "ideas of their own." There, however, he did meet Jeffrey Bub, and the two became friends. He remembered attempting to give everyone in graduate seminars 'As', which was strongly resisted by the students at Yale. He also asked students in his undergraduate classes to build something useful, like furniture or short films, rather than term papers or exams. In the same years, he accepted a new chair in philosophy of science in Berlin and a professorship in Auckland (New Zealand). In Berlin, he faced a 'problem' as he was assigned two secretaries, fourteen assistants and an impressive office with antique furniture and an anteroom, which "gave him the willies":
|
||||
|
||||
“...I wrote and mailed my own letters, including official ones ... never had a mailing list or any list of my publications, and I threw away most of the offprints that were sent to me... That took me out of the academic landscape, but it also simplified my life. ... [In Berlin] the secretaries were soon used by my less independent colleagues and by the assistants. "Look," I said to them, "I was given 80,000 marks for starting a new library; go and buy all the books you want and run as many seminars as you like. Don't ask me-- be independent!". Most of the assistants were revolutionaries, and two of them were sought by the police. Yet, they didn't buy Che Guevara or Mao, or Lenin; they bought books on logic! "We have to learn how to think," they said, as if logic has anything to do with that.
|
||||
While teaching at the London School of Economics, Imre Lakatos often 'jumped in' during Feyerabend's lectures and started defending rationalist arguments. The two "differed in outlook, character and ambitions" but became very close friends. They often met at Lakatos' luxurious house in Turner Woods, which included an impressive library. Lakatos had bought the house for representation purposes and Feyerabend often made gentle fun of it, choosing to help Lakatos' wife to wash dishes after dinner rather than engaging in scholarly debates with 'important guests' in the library. "Don't worry" – Imre would say to his guests – "Paul is an anarchist". Lakatos and Feyerabend planned to write a dialogue volume in which Lakatos would defend a rationalist view of science and Feyerabend would attack it. This planned joint publication was put to an end by Lakatos's sudden death in 1974. Feyerabend was devastated by it.
|
||||
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-4.md
Normal file
21
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-4.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,21 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 5/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Feyerabend had become more and more aware of the limitation of theories – no matter how well conceived – compared with the detailed, idiosyncratic issues encountered in the course of scientific practice. The "poverty of abstract philosophical reasoning" became one of the "feelings" that motivated him to pull together the collage of observations and ideas that he had conceived for the project with Imre Lakatos, whose first edition was published in 1975 as Against Method. Feyerabend added to it some outrageous passages and terms, including about an 'anarchistic theory of knowledge', for the sake of provocation and in memory of Imre. He mostly wanted to encourage attention to scientific practice and common sense rather than to the empty 'clarifications' of logicians, but his views were not appreciated by the intellectuals who were then directing traffic in the philosophical community, who tended to isolate him. Against Method also suggested that "approaches not tied to scientific institutions" may have value, and that scientists should work under the control of the larger public-- views not appreciated by all scientists either. Some gave him the dubious fame of 'worst enemy of science'. Moreover, Feyerabend was aware that "scientific jargon" – read literally, world for word, could reveal not only "nonsense", as found out by John Austin, "but also inhumanity. With the Dadaists Feyerabend realized that "the language of philosophers, politicians, theologians" had similarities with "brute in-articulations". He exposed that by "avoiding scholarly ways of presenting a view" and using "common locutions and the language of show business and pulp instead".
|
||||
In his autobiography, Feyerabend describes how the community of 'intellectuals' seemed to "...take a slight interest in me, lift me up to his own eye level, took a brief look at me, and drop me again. After making me appear more important than I ever thought I was, it enumerated my shortcomings and put me back on my place." This treatment left him all but indifferent. During the years following the publication of Against Method and the critical reviews that followed – some of which as scathing as superficial – he suffered from bouts of ill health and depression. While medical doctors could not do anything for him, some help came from alternative therapies (e.g., Chinese herbal medicines, acupuncture, diet, massage). He also kept moving among academic appointments (Auckland, Brighton, Kassel).
|
||||
Towards the end of the 1970s, Feyerabend was assigned a position as Professor of Philosophy at the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zurich. There, he ran well attended lectures, including on the Theaetetus, Timeaus, and Aristotle's physics as well as public debates and seminars for the non-academic public. Through the 1980s, he enjoyed alternating between posts at ETH Zurich and UC Berkeley. In 1983, he also met Grazia Borrini, who would become his fourth and final wife. She heard of Feyerabend from train passengers in Europe and attended his seminar in Berkeley. They were married in 1989, when they both decided to try to have children, for which they needed medical assistance due to Feyerabend's war injury. Feyerabend claims that he finally understood the meaning of love because of Grazia. This had a dramatic impact on his worldview ("Today it seems to me that love and friendship play a central role and that without them even the noblest achievements and the most fundamental principles remain pale, empty and dangerous"). It is also in those years that he developed what he describes as "...a trace of a moral character".
|
||||
|
||||
“...a moral character cannot be created by argument, 'education' or an act of will. It cannot be created by any kind of planned action, whether scientific, political, moral or religious. Like true love, it is a gift, not an achievement. It depends on accidents, such as parental affection, some kind of stability, friendship, and-- following therefrom-- on a delicate balance between self-confidence and concern for others. We can create conditions that favor the balance; we cannot create the balance itself. Guilt, responsibility, obligation-- these ideas make sense when the balance is given. They are empty words, even obstacles, when it is lacking.”
|
||||
|
||||
In 1989, Feyerabend voluntarily left Berkeley for good. After his mandatory retirement also from Zurich, in 1990, he continued to give lectures, including often in Italy, published papers and book reviews for Common Knowledge, and worked on his posthumously released Conquest of Abundance and on his autobiography-- the volumes for which writing became for him "a 'pleasurable activity', almost like composing a work of art". He remained based in Meilen, in Switzerland, but often spent time with his wife in Rome. After a short period of suffering from an inoperable brain tumor, he died in 1994 at the Genolier Clinic, overlooking Lake Geneva, Switzerland. He had just turned 70. He is buried in his family grave, in Vienna.
|
||||
|
||||
== Thought ==
|
||||
|
||||
=== Philosophy of science ===
|
||||
14
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-5.md
Normal file
14
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-5.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 6/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
==== Kraft Circle, hidden variables, and no-go proofs ====
|
||||
During Feyerabend's PhD, he retrospectively describes himself as a "raving positivist." He was the head organizer of the 'Kraft circle' which discussed many issues in the foundations of physics and on the nature of basic statements, which was the topic of his dissertation. In 1948, Feyerabend wrote a short paper in response to Schrödinger's paper "On the Peculiarity of the Scientific Worldview." Here, Feyerabend argued that Schrödinger's demand that scientific theories present are Anschaulich (i.e., intuitively visualizable) is too restrictive. Using the example of the development of Bohr's atomic theory, he claims that theories that are originally unvisualizable develop new ways of making phenomena visualizable. His unpublished paper, "Philosophers and the Physicists," argues for a naturalistic understanding of philosophy where philosophy is "petrified" without physics and physics is "liable to become dogmatic" without philosophy.
|
||||
Feyerabend's early career is also defined by a focus on technical issues within the philosophy of quantum mechanics. Feyerabend argues that von Neumann's 'no-go' proof only shows that the Copenhagen interpretation is consistent with the fundamental theorems of quantum mechanics but it does not logically follow from them. Therefore, causal theories of quantum mechanics (like Bohmian mechanics) are not logically ruled out by von Neumann's proof. After meeting David Bohm in 1957, Feyerabend became an outspoken defender of Bohm's interpretation and argued that hidden variable approaches to quantum mechanics should be pursued to increase the testability of the Copenhagen Interpretation.
|
||||
Feyerabend also provided his own solution to the measurement problem in 1957, although he soon came to abandon this solution. He tries to show that von Neumann's measurement scheme can be made consistent without the collapse postulate. His solution anticipates later developments of decoherence theory.
|
||||
16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-6.md
Normal file
16
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-6.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 7/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
==== Empiricism, pluralism, and incommensurability ====
|
||||
Much of Feyerabend's work from the late 1950s until the late 1960s was devoted to methodological issues in science. Specifically, Feyerabend offers several criticisms of empiricism and offers his own brand of theoretical pluralism. One such criticism concerns the distinction between observational and theoretical terms. If an observational term is understood as one whose acceptance can be determined by immediate perception, then what counts as 'observational' or 'theoretical' changes throughout history as our patterns of habituation change and our ability to directly perceive entities evolve. On another definition, observation terms are those that can be known directly and with certainty whereas theoretical terms are hypothetical. Feyerabend argues that all statements are hypothetical, since the act of observation requires theories to justify its veridicality.
|
||||
To replace empiricism, Feyerabend advances theoretical pluralism as a methodological rule for scientific progress. On this view, proliferating new theories increases the testability of previous theories that might be well-established by observations. This is because some tests cannot be unearthed without the invention of an alternative theory. One example Feyerabend uses repeatedly is Brownian motion which was not a test of the second law of classical thermodynamics. To become a test, it must be first explained by an alternative theory – namely, Einstein's kinetic theory of gases – which formally contradicts the accepted theory. By proliferating new theories, we increase the number of indirect tests of our theories. This makes theoretical pluralism central to Feyerabend's conception of scientific method.
|
||||
Eventually, Feyerabend's pluralism incorporates what he calls the "principle of tenacity." The principle of tenacity allows scientists to pursue theories regardless of the problems it may possess. Examples of problems might include recalcitrant evidence, theoretical paradoxes, mathematical complexity, or inconsistency with neighboring theories. Feyerabend learned of this idea from Kuhn, who argued that without tenacity all theories would have been prematurely abandoned. This principle complements the "principle of proliferation", which admonishes us to invent as many theories as possible, so that those invented theories can become plausible rivals.
|
||||
In his "Empiricism, Reduction, and Experience" (1962), Feyerabend outlines his theory of incommensurability. His theory appears in the same year as Thomas Kuhn's discussion of incommensurability in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but the two were developed independently. According to Feyerabend, some instances of theory change in the history of science do not involve a successor theory that retains its predecessor as a limiting case. In other words, scientific progress does not always involve producing a theory that is a generalization of the previous theory. This is because the successor theory is formally inconsistent with the previous theory attempting to explain the same domain of phenomena. Moreover, the two theories do not share the same empirical content and, therefore, cannot be compared by the same set of observation statements. For example, Buridan's impetus principle has no analogue in classical mechanics. The closest analogue would be momentum, but the two notions are qualitatively distinct (impetus causes motion whereas momentum is the result of motion). Furthermore, Feyerabend claims that there can be no 'parallel notion' of impetus that is explicable within classical mechanics. Any parallel notion that gives non-zero values must assume that inertial movements happen in a resisting medium, which is inconsistent with the assumption in classical mechanics that inertial motion happens in empty space. Therefore, "the concept of impetus, as fixed by the usage established in the impetus theory, cannot be defined in a reasonable way within Newton's theory [since] the usage involves laws... which are inconsistent with Newtonian physics." In response to criticisms of Feyerabend's position, he clarifies that there are other ways in which theories can be compared such as comparing the structures of infinite sets of elements to detect isomorphisms, comparing "local grammars", or building a model of a theory within its alternative. Incommensurability, however, only arises if scientists make the choice to interpret theories realistically. Theories interpreted instrumentally cannot be incommensurable, on Feyerabend's view.
|
||||
Feyerabend's pluralism is supported by what he calls the 'pragmatic theory of meaning' which he developed in his dissertation. Here, he explicitly resuscitates Neurath and Carnap's physicalism from the 1930s. According to the pragmatic theory of meaning, language consists of two parts. First, there is the characteristic of a language which is a series of noises produced under specific experimental situations. On Feyerabend's views, human observation has no special epistemic status – it is just another kind of measuring apparatus. The characteristic of a language comes from placing observers in the presence of phenomena and instructing them to make specific noises when a phenomenon is sensed. These noises, to become statements (or parts of a language with meaning), must then be interpreted. Interpretation comes from a theory, whose meaning is given is learned though not necessarily through ostension. Once we have an interpreted characteristic, we have statements that can be used to test theories.
|
||||
25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-7.md
Normal file
25
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-7.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 8/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
==== Departure from Popper ====
|
||||
Beginning in at least the mid-to-late 1960s, Feyerabend distanced himself from Popper both professionally and intellectually. There is a great amount of controversy about the source and nature of Feyerabend's distancing from Popper. Joseph Agassi claims that it was caused by the student revolutions at Berkeley, which somehow promoted Feyerabend's move towards epistemological anarchism defended in the 1970s. Feyerabend's friend Roy Edgley claims that Feyerabend became distanced from Popper as early as the mid-1950s, when he went to Bristol and then Berkeley and was more influenced by Thomas Kuhn and the Marxism of David Bohm.
|
||||
Feyerabend's first paper that explicitly repudiates Popper is his two-part paper on Niels Bohr's conception of complementarity. According to Popper, Bohr and his followers accepted complementarity as a consequence of accepting positivism. Popper was the founder of the theory of falsification, which Feyerabend was very critical of. He meant that no science is perfect, and therefore cannot be proven false. Once one repudiates positivism as a philosophical doctrine, Popper claims, one undermines the principle of complementarity. Against this, Feyerabend claims that Bohr was a pluralist who attempting to pursue a realistic interpretation of quantum mechanics (the Bohr-Kramer-Slater conjecture) but abandoned it due to its conflict with the Bothe-Geiger and Compton-Simon experiments. While Feyerabend concedes that many of Bohr's followers (notably, Leon Rosenfeld) accept the principle of complementarity as a philosophical dogma, he contends that Bohr accepted complementarity because it was entangled with an empirically adequate physical theory of microphysics.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Anarchist phase ====
|
||||
|
||||
In the 1970s, Feyerabend outlines an anarchistic theory of knowledge captured by the slogan 'anything goes'. The phrase 'anything goes' first appears in Feyerabend's paper "Experts in a Free Society" and is more famously proclaimed at the end of the first chapter of Against Method. Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism has been the source of contention amongst scholars. Some claim that epistemological anarchism is not a positive view of scientific method, but the conclusion of a reductio ad absurdum of 'rationalism' (the view that there are universal and unchanging rational rules for scientific reasoning). In Feyerabend's words, "'anything goes' is not a 'principle' I hold... but the terrified exclamation of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history." On this interpretation, Feyerabend aims to show that no methodological view can be held as fixed and universal and therefore the only fixed and universal rule would be "anything goes" which would be useless.
|
||||
On another interpretation, Feyerabend is claiming that scientists should be unscrupulous opportunists who choose methodological rules that make sense within a given situation. On this view, there are no 'universal' methodological rules but there are local rules of scientific reasoning that should be followed. The use of the phrase 'opportunism' comes from Einstein which denotes an inquirer who changes their beliefs and techniques to fit the situation at hand, rather than pre-judge individual events with well-defined methods or convictions. Feyerabend thinks that this is justified because "no two individuals (no two scientists; no two pieces of apparatus; no two situations) are ever exactly alike and that procedures should therefore be able to vary also."
|
||||
On a third interpretation, epistemological anarchism is a generalization of his pluralism that he had been developing throughout the 1950s and 1960s. On this view, Feyerabend did not have an anarchist 'turn' but merely generalized his positive philosophy on a more general view. Epistemological anarchism is synonymous with a pluralism without limits, where one can proliferate any theory one wishes and one can tenaciously develop any theory for as long as one wishes. Relatedly, because methods depend on empirical theories for their utility, one can employ any method one wishes in attempt to make novel discoveries. This does not mean that we can believe anything we wish – our beliefs must still stand critical scrutiny – but that scientific inquiry has no intrinsic constraints. The only constraints on scientific practice are those that are materially forced upon scientists. Moreover, Feyerabend also thought that theoretical anarchism was desirable because it was more humanitarian than other systems of organization, by not imposing rigid rules on scientists.
|
||||
|
||||
For is it not possible that science as we know it today, or a "search for the truth" in the style of traditional philosophy, will create a monster? Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour? "Is it not possible," asks Kierkegaard, "that my activity as an objective [or critico-rational] observer of nature will weaken my strength as a human being?" I suspect the answer to many of these questions is affirmative and I believe that a reform of the sciences that makes them more anarchic and more subjective (in Kierkegaard's sense) is urgently needed. Against Method (3rd ed.). p. 154.
|
||||
According to these "existential criteria", methodological rules can be tested by the kinds of lives that they suggest. Feyerabend's position was seen as radical, because it implies that philosophy can neither succeed in providing a general description of science, nor in devising a method for differentiating products of science from non-scientific entities like myths.
|
||||
To support his position that methodological rules generally do not contribute to scientific success, Feyerabend analyzed counterexamples to the claim that (good) science operates according to the methodological standards invoked by philosophers during Feyerabend's time (namely, inductivism and falsificationism). Starting from episodes in science that are generally regarded as indisputable instances of progress (e.g. the Copernican Revolution), he argued that these episodes violated all common prescriptive rules of science. Moreover, he claimed that applying such rules in these historical situations would actually have prevented scientific revolution. His primary case study is Galileo's hypothesis that the Earth rotates on its axis.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Metaphysics of abundance ====
|
||||
29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-8.md
Normal file
29
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-8.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,29 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 9/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
In Feyerabend's later work, especially in Conquest of Abundance, Feyerabend articulates a metaphysical theory in which the universe around us is 'abundant' in the sense that it allows for many realities to be accepted simultaneously. According to Feyerabend, the world, or 'Being' as he calls it, is pliable enough that it can change in accordance with the ways in which we causally engage with the world. In laboratories, for example, scientists do not simply passively observe phenomena but actively intervene to create phenomena with the help of various techniques. This makes entities like 'electrons' or 'genes' real because they can be stably used in a life that one may live. Since our choices about what lives we should live depend on our ethics and our desires, what is 'real' depends on what plays a role in a life that we think is worth living. Feyerabend calls this 'Aristotle's principle' as he believes that Aristotle held the same view.
|
||||
Being, therefore, is pliable enough to be manipulated and transformed to make many realities that conform to different ways of living in the world. However, not all realities are possible. Being resists our attempts to live with it in certain ways and so not any entity can be declared as 'real' by mere stipulation. In Feyerabend's words,
|
||||
|
||||
"I do not assert that any [form of life] will lead to a well-articulated and livable world. The material humans...face must be approached in the right way. It offers resistance; some constructions (some incipient cultures - cargo cults, for example) find no point of attack in it and simply collapse"
|
||||
This leads Feyerabend to defend the disunity of the world thesis that was articulated by many members of the Stanford School. There are many realities that cannot be reduced to one common 'Reality' because they contain different entities and processes. This makes it possible that some realities contain gods while others are purely materialistic, although Feyerabend thought that materialistic worldviews were deficient in many unspecified ways.
|
||||
Feyerabend's ideas about a 'conquest of abundance' were first voiced in Farewell to Reason, and the writings of the late 1980s and early 1990s experiment with different ways of expressing the idea, including many of the articles and essays published as part two of Conquest of Abundance. A new theme of this later work is the ineffability of Being, which Feyerabend developed with reference to the work of the Christian mystic, Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite. The remarks on ineffability in Conquest of Abundance are too unsystematic to definitively interpret.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Philosophy of mind ===
|
||||
|
||||
==== Eliminative materialism ====
|
||||
Along with a number of mid-20th century philosophers (most notably, Wilfrid Sellars, Willard Van Orman Quine, and Richard Rorty), Feyerabend was influential in the development of eliminative materialism, a radical position in the philosophy of mind. On some definitions, eliminative materialism holds that all that exists are material processes and, therefore, our ordinary, common-sense understanding of the mind ("folk psychology") is false. It is described by a modern proponent, Paul Churchland, as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
"Eliminative materialism is the thesis that our commonsense conception of psychological phenomena constitutes a radically false theory, a theory so fundamentally defective that both the principles and the ontology of that theory will eventually be displaced, rather than smoothly reduced, by completed neuroscience."
|
||||
Feyerabend wrote on eliminative materialism in three short papers published in the early sixties. The most common interpretation of these papers is that he was an early forerunner of eliminative materialism. This was a major influence on Patricia and Paul Churchland. As Keeley observes, "[Paul Churchland] has spent much of his career carrying the Feyerabend mantle forward." More recent scholarship claims that Feyerabend was never an eliminative materialist and merely aimed to show that common criticisms against eliminative materialism were methodologically faulty. Specifically, on this interpretation, while Feyerabend defended eliminative materialism from arguments from acquaintance and our intuitive understanding of the mind, he did not explicitly claim that eliminative materialism was true. In doing so, Feyerabend leaves open the possibility that dualism is true but this would have to be shown through scientific arguments rather than philosophical stipulation. In any case, Feyerabend explicitly disavows materialism in his later philosophical writings.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Cognitive plasticity ====
|
||||
Feyerabend briefly entertains and is sympathetic to the hypothesis that there are no innate, cognitive limitations imposed upon the human brain. By this he meant that there were no intrinsic limitations about what we can conceive or understand. Spread out through Feyerabend's writings are passages that suggest that this is confirmed by evidence at the time in the mind-brain sciences. Specifically, he claims that "until now only two or three per cent of the inbuilt circuits of the brain have been utilised. A large variety of [change] is therefore possible." The brain, therefore, is largely plastic and can be adapted in numerous unknown ways. Similarly, he cites Nietzsche's philological findings about changes in perception from classical to Hellenistic Greece. He also criticizes E.O. Wilson's claim that genes limit "human ingenuity" which he claims can only be discovered by acting as if there are no limits to the kinds of lives humans can live. While Feyerabend's remarks on this subject are vague and merely suggestive, they have received uptake and confirmation in more recent research.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Political philosophy ===
|
||||
32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-9.md
Normal file
32
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend-9.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Feyerabend"
|
||||
chunk: 10/12
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Feyerabend"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:21.037257+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
==== Expertise in a free society ====
|
||||
Starting from the argument that a historical universal scientific method does not exist, Feyerabend argues that science does not deserve its privileged status in western society. Since scientific points of view do not arise from using a universal method which guarantees high quality conclusions, he thought that science has no intrinsic claim to intellectual authority over other intellectual traditions like religion or myths.
|
||||
Based on these arguments, Feyerabend defended the idea that science should be separated from the state in the same way that religion and state are separated in a modern secular society He envisioned a free society in which "all traditions have equal rights and equal access to the centres of power." For example, parents should be able to determine the ideological context of their children's education, instead of having limited options because of scientific standards. According to Feyerabend, science should also be subjected to democratic control: not only should the subjects that are investigated by scientists be determined by popular election, scientific assumptions and conclusions should also be supervised by committees of lay people. He thought that citizens should use their own principles when making decisions about these matters. He rejected the view that science is especially "rational" on the grounds that there is no single common "rational" ingredient that unites all the sciences but excludes other modes of thought.
|
||||
Feyerabend thought that scientific expertise was partially exaggerated by needless uses of jargon and technical language and that many contributions towards science were made by laypeople. Rather than distinguish between "experts" and "laypeople" and privilege the former, Feyerabend distinguishes between "cranks" and "respectable researchers" which is defined by the virtues of inquirers rather than their credentials. In Feyerabend's words,
|
||||
|
||||
"The distinction between the crank and the respectable thinker lies in the research that is done once a certain point of view is adopted. The crank usually is content with defending the point of view in its original, undeveloped, metaphysical form, and he is not prepared to test its usefulness in all those cases which seem to favor the opponent, or even admit that there exists a problem. It is this further investigation, the details of it, the knowledge of the difficulties, of the general state of knowledge, the recognition of objections, which distinguishes the 'respectable thinker' from the crank. The original content of his theory does not"
|
||||
According to this view, we cannot identify who counts as a crank based on the content of their beliefs. Someone who believes in flat earth theory, climate change denial, or astrology – for example – are not necessarily cranks, depending on how they defend those beliefs from criticism.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Democracy and science funding ====
|
||||
Feyerabend thought that science funding agencies should be subject to democratic oversight. On this view, the allocation of funds for research should not be decided by practicing scientists exclusively, as is often the case with peer review. Rather, there should be supervision from taxpayers who determine research priorities. Because of this, Feyerabend defended the Baumann amendment which proposed that there should be Congressional veto power over the National Science Foundation's budget proposals. According to Feyerabend, this follows both from the fact that outsider criticism is necessary for science to flourish and from a right to knowledge which he believed was central to a free society.
|
||||
|
||||
=== Ancient philosophy ===
|
||||
|
||||
==== Aristotle ====
|
||||
Feyerabend greatly admired Aristotle's philosophy, largely due to its productivity. According to Feyerabend, Aristotle was an early epitome of naturalistic philosophy whose scientific research was part and parcel with his epistemology. He also claims that Aristotle was one of the most empiricist scientists in history and that his work in physics and mathematics continues to pay dividends after the scientific revolution.
|
||||
|
||||
==== Xenophanes and the rise of rationalism ====
|
||||
|
||||
In Farewell to Reason, Feyerabend criticizes Popper's claim that Xenophanes, who Feyerabend calls a "conceited bigmouth" with "considerable charm", was the first to engage in rational criticism in his arguments against anthropomorphic gods. According to Feyerabend, Xenophanes' theological writings can only constitute a criticism if the premises would be accepted by his opponents. Otherwise, Xenophanes is merely rejecting the Homeric gods. In the Iliad, and elsewhere, Feyerabend interprets Homer as accepting the view that the universe is subdivided into parts with different laws and qualitative features that do not aggregate into a unified whole. This informs Homer's theology since there can be no coherent knowledge of the whole of the universe, only detailed understandings of isolated parts of the universe. Feyerabend further argues that some thinkers who came after Xenophanes, such as Aeschylus and Sophocles, also rejected Xenophanes' premise that the gods cannot be anthropomorphic. Additionally, Xenophanes represents the beginning of a tyrannical ideology which enforces 'truth' and 'morality' upon all as if there was a single universe that could be captured in a single worldview.
|
||||
Feyerabend also criticizes Xenophanes' pretensions to have developed a conception of God that has no human features, arguing that Xenophanes' God still engages in human activities (such as thinking or hearing). Moreover, he argues that Xenophanes' God resembles a monster as it becomes more detached from human affairs and is therefore more morally problematic than the Homeric gods.
|
||||
|
||||
== Influence ==
|
||||
54
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marmet-0.md
Normal file
54
data/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marmet-0.md
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
title: "Paul Marmet"
|
||||
chunk: 1/1
|
||||
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Marmet"
|
||||
category: "reference"
|
||||
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
||||
date_saved: "2026-05-05T03:08:29.169390+00:00"
|
||||
instance: "kb-cron"
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
Paul Marmet, (20 May 1932 – 20 May 2005) was a Canadian physicist, inventor, author, and professor at Laval University in Quebec City, Canada, who served as the President of the Canadian Association of Physicists.
|
||||
Marmet is notable for developing a novel high-resolution electron velocity selector, a scientific instrument which became widely used by scientists around the world.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Inventions ==
|
||||
Early in his career, Marmet developed a high-resolution electron selector with his mentor Larkin Kerwin, a scientific instrument for studying ionic electronic states.
|
||||
Along with a mass spectrometer Marmet developed, the novel instrument had an energy resolution superior to then-available instruments and has been used widely by scientists studying electron scattering, which led to the discovery of enhanced vibrational excitation in nitrogen and of Feshbach resonances.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Research ==
|
||||
Using the Marmet-Kerwin electron selector, Marmet and his research group discovered atomic and molecular states excited by electron impact but not by photons, such as doubly excited states that disobey spectroscopic selection rules. The group also found negative-ion resonances in which the incident electron temporarily attaches to the target atom or molecule.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Career ==
|
||||
After receiving his physics BSc in 1956 and DSc in 1960 from Laval University and entering the Physics faculty as an assistant professor at his alma mater school in 1961, Marmet became a full professor in 1967 at age 34.
|
||||
Starting in 1967, he was director of the Laboratory for Atomic and Molecular Physics at Laval University, serving until 1982.
|
||||
Between 1981 and 1982, Marmet served as President of the Canadian Association of Physicists.
|
||||
From 1983 to 1990, he was a senior researcher at the Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics of the National Research Council Canada in Ottawa. While there, Marmet helped the University of Ottawa modernize its Physics education program.
|
||||
In addition to the prominent role he played in developing the Canadian Space Program, Paul Marmet also served on the executive committee of the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada (now the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission).
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Opposition to quantum mechanics, relativity, and the Big Bang ==
|
||||
In his later years, Marmet became an outspoken critic of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, and the Big Bang cosmological model. He maintained a website devoted to his view.
|
||||
Marmet was one of 34 signers of An Open Letter to the Scientific Community advocating against the Big Bang cosmology.
|
||||
He also held an opposing view on cosmological redshift and advocated tired light cosmology.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Activism ==
|
||||
In addition to his activities as a member of the first Associate Committee on Astronomy of the National Research Council since 1971 and his playing a crucial role in negotiations for the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope, Marmet was also promoting the development of Quebec's first astronomical research telescope.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Bibliography ==
|
||||
Absurdities in Modern Physics – book (free eBook)
|
||||
Einstein's theory of relativity versus classical mechanics - book
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== Honours ==
|
||||
Member of the Order of Canada (CO), 1981
|
||||
Service Award, Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, 1977
|
||||
Léo-Pariseau Prize of the French Canadian Association for the Advancement of Science (ACFAS), 1976
|
||||
Herzberg Medal of the Canadian Association of Physicists, 1971
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
== References ==
|
||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user