Against Method

Paul Feyerabend is one of the most pioneering of the contemporary pragmatist philosophers of science. This is the 1988 edition of his first book originally published in 1975. Most of his philosophical ideas are set forth in this book, and its "Analytical Index", which functions as a table of contents at the opening of the book, is wonderfully convenient for entering his thought. His thesis of "scientific anarchy" or "anything goes" is probably the most controversial of his ideas about the empirical sciences. It is fully intended to be more radical than Kuhn's phrase "scientific revolution." Feyerabend ridicules any positive valuation of scientific institutions or rational processes involving criteria for scientific criticism in basic science. He is thus explicitly and emphatically opposed to Popper's philosophy of scientific criticism, and he caricatures it as "ratiomania" and "law-and-order science." His "incommensurability" thesis of the semantics of successive scientific theories is his best-known idea, and it resembles Kuhn's use of the same term. Unlike Kuhn who qualified his earlier statements, Feyerabend makes no concession to the radical nature of his thesis. In this book he elaborates his "incommensurability" thesis in terms of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis of linguistic relativity. Like Kuhn, he unfortunately never developed a theory of meaning description. His rejection of the positivist observation language makes his philosophy characteristically post-positivist, and his thesis of "counterinduction" is one of his most interesting ideas. His exemplification of counterinduction in Galileo's defense of the Copernican theory is one of the most insightful philosophical analyses I have ever read. Had Feyerabend not taken Bohr's ideas as definitive of quantum theory, he might also have exemplified counterinduction in Heisenberg's reinterpretation of the electron's track in the Wilson cloud chamber, which Heisenberg describes in his book, Physics and Beyond. I believe that retrospection will reveal that Feyerabend is one of the truly great philosophers of the twentieth century. For more about his philosophy Google my book titled History of Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science at my web site philsci with free downloads. See especially Book VI. Thomas J. Hickey

A friend of mine who worked in a restaurant once told me that if I knew what was going on in the kitchen, I would never go to eat there. After having read Feyerabend I wondered: if the general public knew the inside world of science, would anything with "scientific" basis still be trusted, would we admire their celebrities like Einstein, Feynman, etc.? Against Method calls into question the position that science enjoys in modern society (politics, education, etc.). The separation of state and science the same way it was done in the case of state and religion during the Enlightenment is suggested. The main reason is that science is hardly distinguishable from the myths often encountered in religion, it can be equally as dogmatic (if not more), aspects of religion often criticized by scientists (such as giving more weight to ideas coming from prestigious sources) are very much present in science as well, and the concept of scientific method that is supposed to distinguish science from myth, according to Feyerabend, does not exist. Scientists on their way to useful discovery use a variety of tools, which includes rational argument and experimental checks, but it can also include rhetoric, propaganda, opportunism, etc. Furthermore it is not only that the scientific method does not exist, but it would hinder progress (in particular of science itself) if it existed, since proposing new ideas would be prevented from coming to light by the strict and binding criteria of any method, and in fact spontaneity would be sacrificed. It is also mentioned that the situation in science is steadily worsening since science has become a business in which producing bulk, (not mentioned are politicking at conferences, kissing up to powerful maffiosos of the field), etc. are more essential in building a scientific career than in depth investigations or great ideas. Essentially the above is the analysis of science according to Feyerabend. His criticism of modern science (or perhaps more its institutes which intertwine with politics and business) is rather apposite. His solution is a sort of democracy or anarchy of ideas where science, religion, voodoo are more or less given "equal opportunity" to contribute, and everyone takes from them what s/he needs at any given time. It seems to me that one of the conclusions of the book is not to give automatic trust to what is called science. Scientific achievements are not to be under-appreciated, but there is no reason to follow the advice of scientists (or so-called experts), necessarily, on issues such as their critique of religion (or other competing ideas of the world at large), what should be taught in schools, where tax money should be spent, or even scientific issues such as whether genetically modified organisms necessarily benefit everyone. The invention of the transistor certainly has made life easier, but science can do as much harm as good: some of the most talented and intellectually persistent individ

Feyerabend was probably the first philosopher of science who really stated that science as it is practised by scientists themselves is NOT an enterprise which can be strictly constructed or even fully described in any conventional methodical way such as the philosophies of positivism and even rationality or idealism for that matter propose. As is true for any human enterprise, no matter how strongly this is denied by the popular science press, it is, as Feyerabend puts it, an anarchaic enterprise, this does not mean random chaos or a process with no order rather he refers to the fact that scientists just as authors of great literature or poets, pursue their subject via many paths rather than the strict methodologies which are supposed to define science, in fact these methodologies fail to be `...capable of accounting for such a maze of interactions'. Einstein is noted as saying that `The external conditions which are set for the scientist by the facts of experience do not permit him to let himself be too much restricted, in the construction of his conceptual world, by the adherence to an epistemological system'. Feyerabend goes on to say that `The attempt...to discover the secrets of nature and of man, entails, therefore, the rejection of all universal standards and of all rigid traditions.' So starts his book "Against Method" and through detailed analysis of the scientists and the phenomenon in question Feyerabend proceeds to demolish any assertions which compress science into a box which stands alone outside of all other influences such as religion, history, culture or philosophy. The idea that irrational means are used by scientists to form theories and understand phenomena is stressed. Similarly the fact that an observation is made does not necessarily imply the theory which follows eg the moon seen through Galeleos eyes. Also, reason is sometimes discarded in favour of new, seemingly unreasonable, ideas which explain the phenomenon and finally science itself becomes a kind of tradition in its own way. The blindness of the usual ways of thinking about science as expressed in the popular press is made clear and it is shown science is not and never has been or will be the only true way of understanding the universe.Feyerabend's book is very entertaining given the radical and playfull nature of the man himself (see `Killing Time', his autobiography), nonetheless it is very well researched and his argument is solid. He does not shirk his academic responsibilities but rather writes as he thinks is best in order to explain his ideas without necessarily having to write in a cold or overly rational way. Feyerabend also includes excerpts from his experience of famous scientists during his life such as the radical Felix Ehrenhaft, the young Popper full of vitality or Wittgenstein. He further explores his own misgivings when teaching people of cultures other than his own eg native Americans, Mexicans and so on and his own understanding that he had no re

This book is a must read for those interested in the history and philosophy of science, epistemology, and philosophy. Feyerabend presents a refreshing perspective in philosphy of science, even in the context of contemporary thought. The arguments presented in the book are bold, original, persuasive, and often humourous. Feyerabend's main thesis is that the ideas of 'scientific rationality,' 'truth,' and 'progress' are myths. He supports an 'anarchistic' (or 'Dadaist') conception of scientific methodology.

Anyone who expects an academic, theory building and hence myopic interpretation of history, especially in the context of scientific discovery and the nature of scientific fact and laws, would be well-advised to look elsewhere.This book is a humorous, multi-sided and relentless attack on accepted notions and interpretations of consistency and progress, achieved through a single method (such as rationality or logic), in the area of human knowledge. Feyerabend denies method supremacy over contextual and meaning rich subjective thinking, and marshals the facts of history to establish the lack of any single method or well-defined body (such as science) in the growth of human knowledge.What Howard Zinn did to conventional history with "A People's History of the United States", Feyerabend here accomplishes with regards to the history of science and rationalism. In doing so, he opens the door not for sloppy thinking, but for colorful and context rich thought and expression.