Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994), philosophy professor at the University of California (Berkeley), sometimes said that what is termed science in one culture is called voodoo in another:
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 form of clarity, precision, ‘objectivity,’ [or] ’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.” Paul K. Feyerabend, Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge (1975, 1993), 18-19. )
Just came across an interesting contrarian piece by John Horgan in Scientific American (October 24, 2016) arguing that he was not necessarily an enemy of science,
Beneath Feyerabend’s rhetorical antics lurked a deadly serious theme: the human compulsion to find absolute truths, however noble it may be, often culminates in tyranny. Feyerabend attacked science not because he actually believed it was no more valid than astrology or religion. Quite the contrary. He attacked science because he recognized–and was horrified by–science’s vast superiority to other modes of knowledge. His objections to science were moral and political rather than epistemological. He feared that science, precisely because of its enormous power, could become a totalitarian force that crushes all its rivals. More.
That doesn’t seem to some of us to be a good reason for promoting post-modernism. Readers?
See also: Question for multiverse theorists: To what can science appeal, if not evidence?