4A. EDDINGTON’S REPLY TO HARMAN: THE WAY OF RESEARCH

Feyerabend stands in opposition to this demand for a new construction, and wholeheartedly espouses the continued necessity of deconstruction. He rejects the idea that we need a new system or theoretical framework, arguing that in many cases a unified theoretical framework is just not necessary or even useful:

“a theoretical framework may not be needed (do I need a theoretical framework to get along with my neighbor?). Even a domain that uses theories may not need a theoretical framework (in periods of revolution theories are not used as frameworks but are broken into pieces which are then arranged this way and that way until something interesting seems to arise)” (Philosophy and Methodology of Military Intelligence, 13).

Further, not only is a unified framework often unnecessary, it can be a hindrance to our research and to the conduct of our lives: “frameworks…

“Someone who resembles us in so many ways and differs from us in but one characteristic threatens us much more than the totally other or alien.” – Rethinking Pluralism

A couple of days ago I wrote about how the emerging Atheism+ movement appears to be trying to dissociate itself from the “near other,” and suggested that this particular form of othering sits at the heart of sectarianism. Since then the online atheist community has generated a lot of discussion over what Atheism+ actually is and how productive/unproductive the methods employed by it’s promoters/objectors have been. When I suggested that Atheism+ is a sectarian movement I came to that conclusion largely because of the practices employed by its promoters. In the linked post I wrote:

[Atheism+] seeks to splinter atheism into two groups, one of which is defined more precisely in a manner that excludes the other. That it does…