Aims are never rational:

Whenever an aim is derived by rational conclusion, it must be derived as a means to a higher aim. If the latter is still rational, then it must itself be a means to an even higher aim - and so forth: ultimately, our highest aim(s) are irrational!

Suppose for example that your aim is to save the world: why would you want that?!?

Saving the world is still not an aim, but a means. It is also a mistaken solution to whatever real aim is behind it, because the world cannot be saved: the world will either end up in a big crunch, or dissipate infinitely with no particles left intact.

So what can the aim behind trying to save the world be?

Most likely it is an attempt to relieve guilt. We have done bad things to others and we somehow think that if we saved the world that we messed up, then we shall no longer feel guilty.

Violence is inherent in nature, including human nature. So as long as we identify with a human body and its various "needs", we are bound to feel guilty - and just imagine how guilty would you feel if for example you identified with a black hole... In order to stop feeling guilty, the only way is to stop identifying with natural objects, human bodies included, rather than to try to save or fix an unfixable world.

What has science to do with it? Pretty much nothing: we already know more than we need regarding how to achieve our aims, but where is the will to pursue what we already empirically know is good for our higher aims and to avoid what we already empirically know is bad for our higher aims?

What we most feel guilty for, is for making this world so miserable by filling it with far too many people in order to satisfy selfish desires for genetic lineage. What's the use of wishing to control the earth, the moon and the stars, when we cannot or would-not even control our own semen?

To Alan B

I don't think the article was about whether science can save the world or not, but that applying a version of critial thinking and critism that is part of scientific study and thought to other areas of life. Here's a quote from the article to say say it in the author's words.

"By means of judicious use of criticism, in personal, social and political life, we may be able to achieve, in life, progressive success somewhat like the progressive success achieved by science. We can, in this way, in short, learn from scientific progress how to make personal and social progress in life. Science, as I have said, provides the methodological key to our salvation."

To Yuyutsu.

[Aims are never rational:

Whenever an aim is derived by rational conclusion, it must be derived as a means to a higher aim. If the latter is still rational, then it must itself be a means to an even higher aim - and so forth: ultimately, our highest aim(s) are irrational!]

What are you trying to say? The article's use of aim is part of a wordy brand name of his idea. (I don't know if there's more to it then his branding a name to the idea he's trying to propose, when explainations get too wordy without saying much new, it's a red flag in my opinion. But I could be wrong on that aspect.)

Your use of aim though sounds like if the grand scheme kind of aim is irrational then it is all irrational and not worth pursuing. If that is not what your saying then please try your explaination again. If it is what your saying then I disagree wholeheartedly. The pursuit of any goal (aim?) can be worth it even if it stays out of the grand scheme of things outlook. But again, perhaps I'm misunderstanding both your use and meaning of aim as well as the author of the article's use of aim.

Allowing the content of science to be dictated by ideological concerns inevitably produces two results: science that doesn't work at all, and the wholesale persecution of those who are presumptuous enough to point this out.

Feyerabend disagrees. His central thesis was that the idea of the operation of science by fixed, universal rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I definitely did not mean to claim as if aims were not worth pursuing.

Yes, aims are irrational: all that means is that the author's idea as if it were possible to derive our aims using rational science, is logically flawed. The author explains his choice of brand-name as follows:

"Conventional ideas about rationality are all about means, not about ends, and are not designed to help us improve our ends as we proceed. Implementing aim-oriented rationality is essential..."

Yet just because they happen to be irrational, aims can still be, and indeed often are, worthwhile.

So how DO we improve our aims (as opposed to the means that we use to achieve them)? to some extent you could call it the work of the heart, rather than of the mind. Ultimately it happens by grace alone.

My immediate thought is,
Who is trying to save it.
What or who are they trying to save it from.
What or who are they trying to save it for.

And the answers.

The elites are trying to save it.
They are trying to save it from us the peasants.
Many of them simply hate the thought that we peasants are living so well. The rest are worried we may use up too many resources, leaving not enough for their great great great grand kids.

Isn't it amazing that they have succeeded in brainwashing the youth of today to take up the cause of robbing themselves of what the older generation had developed for them to inherit?

Did stone age elites try to stop the peasants wasting precious stones?

Will the youth ever realise they have been conned?