The title of this article is borrowed from Paul Feyerabend, a self-described “epistemological anarchist”, who promulgated an irreverent view of science.Quoting an "anarchist" who promotes "irrational methods" isn't going to help the reputation of a theory which is already considered crackpot by many. The whole article reads like something done by a starving lawyer.
Paul Feyerabend, one of the most important Philosophers of the 20th Century, concerned himself with the meaning of science in society and thought. Here are some excerpts on his writing:
Against the tyranny of Scientific ‘facts'Scientific "facts" are taught at a very early age and in the very same manner in which religious "facts" were taught only a century ago. There is no attempt to waken the critical abilities of the pupil so that he may be able to see things in perspective. At the universities the situation is even worse, for indoctrination is here carried out in a much more systematic manner. Criticism is not entirely absent. Society, for example, and its institutions, are criticised most severely and often most unfairly and this already at the elementary school level. But science is excepted from the criticism. In society at large the judgement of the scientist is received with the same reverence as the judgement of bishops and cardinals was accepted not too long ago. The move towards "demythologization," for example, is largely motivated by the wish to avoid any clash between Christianity and scientific ideas. If such a clash occurs, then science is certainly right and Christianity wrong.
... Pursue this investigation further and you will see that science has now become as oppressive as the ideologies it had once to fight. Do not be misled by the fact that today hardly anyone gets killed for joining a scientific heresy. … Heretics in science are still made to suffer from the most severe sanctions this relatively tolerant civilization has to offer [for] science has become rigid, that it has ceased to be an instrument of change and liberation. [People claim that] science deserves a special position because it has produced results . This is an argument only if it can be taken for granted that nothing else has ever produced results. Now it may be admitted that almost everyone who discusses the matter makes such an assumption….
...
[Yet we] have become acquainted with methods of medical diagnosis and therapy which are effective (and perhaps even more effective than the corresponding parts of Western medicine) and which are yet based on an ideology that is radically different from the ideology of Western science. ...By now everyone knows that you can earn a lot of money and respect and perhaps even a Nobel Prize by becoming a scientist, so many will become scientists. They will become scientists without having been taken in by the ideology of science, they will be scientists because they have made a free choice. But has not much time been wasted on unscientific subjects and will this not detract from their competence once they have become scientists? Not at all! The progress of science, of good science depends on novel ideas and on intellectual freedom: science has very often been advanced by outsiders (remember that Bohr and Einstein regarded themselves as outsiders).