Against Method by Paul Feyerabend
Last week, I was rereading this striking eristic written by Paul Feyerabend, the author of Farewell to Reason and I found some ideas worth noting.
Throughout the book, Feyerabend scrutinizes the frailties of widespread ideas about the nature of knowledge. He advocated that the only feasible explanations of scientific successes are historical explanations, and that anarchism ought to replace rationalism in the theory of knowledge. He pointed out the issue of annihilating unorthodox initiatives in the name of method.
In a science dominated society, it is easy to forget that science and their methods are not inherently objective. Science is a tradition, with its own method of conceptualizing problems and deriving conclusions. Science is hypothetico-deductive. Scientists frame conjectures and test their logical consequences. A proposition is scientific if only it is falsifiable, otherwise it is metaphysical. However, there is no perfect method. The concept that a single method contains firm, unchangeable and binding principles in all situations is perilous.
Feyerabend’s main assertion is that there is not a single rule that remains valid under all circumstances therefore all rules should be given equal opportunities, even when it contradicts with prevailing theories or authority assumptions. A theory of science that devises standards and structural elements for all scientific activities and authorizes them by reference to “Reason” or “Rationality” is much too crude for researchers on the spot. The Copernican Revolution or Darwinian Revolution-- none of those discoveries could have happened if they had obeyed the general standards.
The author is not against all methods, what he objects to was any kind of intellectual or ideological hegemony who nips unconventional initiatives in the bud. He dislikes narrow-minded philosophical interference and a narrow-minded extensions of the latest scientific fashions to all areas of human endeavor. Throughout the book, he constantly emphasizes that any method, even within science reason cannot be allowed to be comprehensive and that it must often be overruled, or eliminated, in favor of other agencies.
“The point of view underlying this book is not the result of a well-planned train of thought but of arguments prompted by actual encounters. Anger at the wanton destruction of cultural achievements from which we all could have learned, at the conceited assurance with which some intellectuals interfere with the lives of people, and contempt for the trendy phrases they use to embellish their misdeeds was and still is the motive force behind my work.” (p. 252)
Feyerabend’s challenging reassessment of scientific claims and understanding of the history of science is spectacular and I find the ideas eye opening.
