Against Method 3e [Paperback]

Feyerabend supports himself like this. Science operates from theories which inextricably use observation, preconcieved theories (like "the earth is moving right now"), language and subject-dependent vantage point. Since none of these are completely, or ever could be, accurate, no theory can ever be proved, and so many theories would be refuted because of changing paradigms, preconceptiois and world-views affecting all of the above, science would never make any progress. Thus, if there are any rules, they are pragmatic hence science is purely instrumental meaning it can only be judged in retrospect and rules only exist situationally. All may be broken.

So how is Feyerabend not contraversial? Between Popper (all theories are inextricable from preconceptions that sometimes are shown erroneous), Dewey (science is pragmatic and instrumental) and Kuhn (paradigm shifts mark heavy changes in science and because of their scope, make scientific change excruciating and unreliable), all of these Feyerabendian critiques have been made before. The other detriment is that while he makes strategic points against method, it would've helped his credibility if he guided us to a new starting point. If we can only judge science in retrospect, but still can't even be sure that are preconceptions won't get in the way, than how could we even do THAT. An attempt at an answer (even in guess form) would have been nice.

To his credit, the book is written well (certainly not difficult to read), is thought provoking (this coming from a Popperian) and does make some good adjustments to what came before. Popper's insistence that theories, when replacing others, need to be at least as explanative as the old ones. Feyerabend smartly answers with a quick retort - 'Why? Why couldn't a new theory solve most of the problems so well, that we use it assuming the rest will be figured out in due course?' There is also a brilliant post-script where Feyerabend advocates 'seperation of science and state' and makes a beautiful case for science education that teaches many 'hows' instead of many 'whats'. Also his "postscript on relativism" and three prefaces (original, third edition and chinese edition) give a much deserved slap in the face to those that still look at Feyerabend as a relativist and non-believer in science. They need to read this book like they should've the first time. You should read it too.

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 real right to say his own phiosophical view or rather the one pushed by his society was any better than theirs or that intellectual procedures which approach a problem through concepts are the right way to go. Feyerabend stresses that the phrase "anything goes" is far more relavent to the progress of human knowledge and science.

An excellent book written with style

What deeply untrendy, lab-coated person wrote that? None other than Paul Feyerabend, in 1992.

'Against Method', the book that made his name, is dense, quirky and deliberately provocative, in parts a good read, but never intended to be taken as solemn holy writ. The joke is that some people do just that. Those who use the very technology he was talking about to propagate the latest fashions in radical relativism are like the man who told a famous philosopher that he had been a solipsist all his life and was surprised not to have met anyone who agreed with him.

Outside the madhouse there is a distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. Feyerabend's 'solid argument', based on the usual historical case-studies (Copernicus, Galileo etc.), applies at best to the context of discovery, which, as staid old Popper pointed out long ago, can be and often is anarchic. Feyerabend goes much further and asserts that the context of justification is anarchic too, or rather that the traditional epistemic distinction is illusory. This is the crucial step, after which, indeed, anything goes. As far as I can see he adduces no convincing argument for it. (Why should he? If he's right - or if his assertion is right, which may be a different matter - then propaganda is as good as rational argument.) Quite a lot of people believe this. If they tell you it's smart to blur the distinction, or insist that none can be defined, relax - you won't have to go to the local witch doctor next time you get a bad dose of flu, or call in a voodoo priest to fix your computer. Those smart people don't do that; they're not that sort of relativist.

Cheap shot, I hear you say. So read this book, read Laudan's 'Science and Relativism', read Stove's shocker 'Scientific Irrationalism' (hide it from your friends inside a copy of Deleuze & Guattari); then make up your own mind. One caveat: if you find Kuhn's 'Structure' hard going, you'll likely find this even harder. It isn't a laugh a minute, whatever the fans say.

"Always remember that the demonstrations and the rhetorics used do not express any 'deep convictions' of mine. They merely show how easy it is to lead people by the nose ..." - Feyerabend.