to be progressive, even anarchy requires guidelines. Frankly this strikes me more as an antithesis to a dominant paradigm than a thesis (IOW a reactionary response a paradigm that is stifling as opposed to laying out a paradigm) anything goes .... as long as it delivers the goods. IOW science without the demonstrative doesn't look good words like "advance" can only be in use if there are guidelines in place to grant meaning once again, the power of a theory is to have the goods on the table. For instance there isn't much credibility to the theory that the moon is made of cheese, even though it stands to upset the current status quo quite considerably. Obviously this is an absurd take on his statements. As mentioned earlier, its things like this which make me think he is offering more of an antithesis, or a critique of existing standards .... as opposed to introducing a whole new standard heh viva la revolution! Imagine if people took the title of his book deadly seriously and rejected the standard method of reading, and instead licked the pages? IOW one gets refamiliarized with sanity when they examine the normative guidelines that surround the issue. Of course an issue can get so corrupted by institutionalism, hegemony, or whatever as to reduce its practicality/functionality considerably. Hence there is a constant discourse of thesis being critiqued by antithesis to form a synthesis .... which then goes on to become the new thesis and so on ... “ much like thesis -> antithesis -> synthesis is essentially anarchistic my point is that the nuts and bolts of science is empiricism. IOW the playing field is the senses (even though the strategies may call upon a host of mental tools such as extrapolation, logic, or even scientific politics, etc) given that we can't achieve by drumming or chanting what can achieve by reaching for the saw in the right way (or for that matter, chanting with a saw also may not prove so effective), each action withe each tool "converts" us as much as is practically required to do the task. Trying to cheapen it through one too many short cuts gives results that are not only unsatisfactory but also frequently inhibiting or dangerous.