Discussion of Heidegger's Suggestions

Lets use this post to continue the discussion from class about Heidegger's hope that their may be some 'saving power' in technological revealing.

I'll give some quotes from Feyerabend, whom I mentioned at the end of class, because I see a connection in his ideas and the danger Heidegger sees in Enframing. These are from Feyerabend's Against Method

"It is clear, then, that the idea of a fixed method, or of a fixed theory or rationality, rests on too naive a view of man and his social surroundings. To those who look at the rich material provided by history, and who are not intent on impoverishing it in order to please their lower instincts, their craving for intellectual security in the for of clarity, precision, "objectivity", "truth", it will become clear that there is only one principle that can be defended under all circumstances and in all stages of human development. It is the principle: anything goes."

• Pg. 27 & 28

First-world science is one science among many; by claiming to be more it ceases to be an instrument of research and turns into a (political) pressure group.

• Pg iii (Intro to the Chinese Edition of AM)

My intention is not to replace one set of general rules by another such set: my intention is, rather, to convince the reader that all methodologies, even the most obvious ones, have their limits. The best way to show this is to demonstrate the limits and even the irrationality of some rules which she, or he, is likely to regard as basic. In the case that induction (including induction by falsification) this means demonstrating how well the counterinductive procedure can be supported by argument.

Science is not sacrosanct. The mere fact that it exists, is admired, has results is not sufficient for making it a measure of excellence. Modern science arose from global objections against earlier views and rationalism itself, the idea that there are general rules and standards for conducting our affairs, affairs of knowledge included, arose from global objections to common sense.

• pg 223

I think behind Feyerabend's radical tone and proposals there is some truth to his ideas; which is odd for me because I consider myself a strong advocate for science and philosophy of science complementing one another. Most importantly I think Heidegger points us towards the recognition of the need for an alteration to our scientific practices. I think art and poeisis does hold another kind of revealing and that we need to recognize this. I'm calling for a kind of fusion of analytic and Hellenistic thinking, aesthetics, and scientific rationality. However, I do think Feyerabend is wrong about methodology, its abandonment means the loss of any chance to understand our experiences.

My own question I'd like to propose: Can we make Heidegger's ideas easier for people of the modern age to understand and recognize?

What are your thoughts on this kind of alternative conception of truth? How would it affect our day to day lives and politics? If we recognize that science cannot solely decide the truth what would be the best thing to do in court cases that appeal to scientific theory?