11 November 2020

As for my dealings with Feyerabend, I have written several papers, or parts of papers, critiquing his position, and have met him academically and socially on several occasions.  [...]

As for a meeting him, I can briefly recount two of those, but the ones in ephemeral conversation at philosophy of science conferences are lost to my memory for any kind of detail (so presumably nothing of sufficient flare occurred). The two I recall best, I do because they illustrate the flamboyance, the authoritative alpha male, the entertainer, that heads of intellectual movements (among any other social groupings) were required to take on in those days. Both occurred in the early 1970s when I was a young prof at U W. Ontario. The head of dep't, Bob Butts, was intent on building a strong phil. sci. group, and he really succeeded, with Bill Harper, Geof. Bub, and myself, all young careerist early appointments, to others brought with him. Bub and I both had degrees in science, pretty rare, and controversial among philosophers in those days. In this setting, Bob invited Feyerabend, who knew his quantum physics - also a rarity, to visit to meet these young turks who had suddenly gained seats at the hottest tables in phil. sci. Bob B. walked me into his office, where PKF sat smiling, and formally introduced us. We exchanged pleasantries, background education, research directions. Then PKF rose, looked at me and said: so, do you have a philosophy of science? I responded immediately with all the sure footedness of a mountain goat that had mastered its terroire: yes, of course. I waited for deep probing questions about QM, or causality, reduction, whathaveyou. He said: does it teach you how to live? I was not ready for this one, an odd question between 2 analytically trained philosophers of technical science, both of whom had grown up on the analytic fact/value, or norm/theory law divide: certainly not. Then, rapier fast, came the retort: then drop it, it is worth nothing! And with that he vanished out of the room, rapier still painfully twisting in me.

 I knew then that I did not want to rely on the analytic dichotomies, nor rely on flattening rationality to social organisation, or knowledge to socially organised opinion. But I also knew that I did not know how to satisfactorily (to me) answer him.

 The 2nd occasion we were in LA for a big Phil. Sci. meeting, somewhere in the '70s. I was part of a group of 10 or so that had been discussing the issues all day in the conference room and it was agreed that we should leave the venue and re-assemble at a restaurant across town. Thus I found myself in Tommy Kuhn's hire car, a small VW fawn bug, with PKF, and 2 others, driving across sF arguing all the way.  PKF taunting the lack of boldness, social and intellectual. Up on one expressway PKF began to brag about the beauty of the young women he was able to attract to his courses, of how he was able to hold their interest, e.g. by announcing at the first lecture that beautiful women were guaranteed As, while sceptical boys were guaranteed Fs. It was all said in jest, I thought, but uneasily, PKF hotly denying that he was jesting. Think of a world in which such things could be arranged everywhere, he opined, how pleasant it would be for all of us!!  I roared in laughter and said that it would never come to pass because people like him would be its first victims! In his implicit governance by the powerful there would be no room to protect the search for knowledge, or the pursuit of musical mastery, and so on. The best that could be hoped for, I thought to myself, would be the Nazi's respect for good Jewish works, while slaughtering their authors. Stop the car! PKF roared. Pull over now! We did, fearing a collision. PKF opened his passenger door, slid out, jumped the expressway fence, then at 150cm or so high, and disappeared down its embankment. So far as I can remember I never saw him again, at the conference, or anywhere. This was at least as much my doing as his.