Editing Paul Feyerabend (section)

====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.<ref name=Kent>{{cite journal|last=Kent |first=Rory |title= Paul Feyerabend and the Dialectical Character of Quantum Mechanics: A Lesson in Philosophical Dadaism |journal= International Studies in the Philosophy of Science |date=2022|volume=35 | pages= 51–67|doi=10.1080/02698595.2022.2075687 |s2cid=248953806 |doi-access=free }}</ref> 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.<ref name="Feyerabend 1978 9">{{Cite book|last=Feyerabend|first=Paul K.|title=Science in a Free Society|year=1978|pages=9}}</ref>

Based on these arguments, Feyerabend defended the idea that science should be separated from the state in the same way that [[separation of church and state|religion and state are separated in a modern secular society]]<ref>{{Cite book|last=Feyerabend|first=Paul K.|title=Against Method|year=1993|edition=3|pages=160}}</ref> He envisioned a free society in which "all traditions have equal rights and equal access to the centres of power."<ref name="Feyerabend 1978 9"/> 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 [[democracy|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.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Feyerabend|first=Paul K.|title=Science in a Free Society|year=1978|pages=96}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Feyerabend|first=Paul K.|title=Against Method|year=1993|edition=3|pages=264}}</ref>

Feyerabend thought that [[expert|scientific expertise]] was partially exaggerated by needless uses of jargon and technical language<ref name=Feyerabend19703>{{cite journal|last=Feyerabend |first=Paul|title= Experts in a Free Society |journal= The Critic| volume = 29| issue = 2|pages= 58–69}}</ref> and that many contributions towards science were made by laypeople.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Feyerabend|first=Paul K.|title=Science in a Free Society|year=1978|pages=88}}</ref> Rather than distinguish between "experts" and "laypeople" and privileged 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,

<blockquote> "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"<ref name=PKF1964>{{cite journal|last=Feyerabend |first=Paul |title= Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments in the Logic of Factual Support |journal= Critical Approaches to Science and Philosophy |date=1964|pages=260–308}}</ref> </blockquote>

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.<ref name=Shaw20211>{{cite journal|last=Shaw |first=Jamie|title= Feyerabend and Manufactured Disagreement: Reflections on Expertise, Consensus, and Science Policy |journal= Synthese |volume=198|issue=25|date=2021| pages= 6053–6084|doi=10.1007/s11229-020-02538-x |s2cid=255065428 }}</ref>