A controversial and influential voice in the philosophy of science, Paul K. Feyerabend was born and educated in Vienna. After military service during World War. Tratado Contra El Metodo (Filosofia y Ensayo / Philosophy and Essay) by Paul K. Feyerabend at – ISBN – ISBN Tratado contra el metodo by Paul K. Feyerabend at – ISBN – ISBN – Softcover.
|Published (Last):||27 November 2011|
|PDF File Size:||6.48 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.24 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
From here he moves on to argue that there is apul such unitary thing as ‘science’ at all, only a series of different endeavors utilizing cotra, permanently incompatible sets of theories and practices. Instead of the close connection between ideas of rationality feyerabed scientific method on which many thinkers would base their understanding of science on, Feyerabend points out contradictory and irrational ideas, to his mind not just part of science but at its very core.
This message is also a little political as he is afraid that even critical rationalism has the side effect of making humans less human, reducing the human read “irrational” part of us. Instead, he thinks that humans viewed themselves as subjects to forces. But it’s not just dogma that he fights against. To use him as the principal prop on which metldo base an attack on the scientific method does not make the attack significantly more convincing, particularly as Feyerabend occasionally tends to follow Galileo into propaganda.
Feyerabend’s line of thought seems to be that if “anything goes” as he glibly puts it in science, science has no special claims to knowledge and that other ways of knowing should be respected.
Originally published on my blog here in December Science is ‘pluralistic’ in that it relies in multiple methods of analysis and conceptualizing problems. By censoring creationism, we assume that the state is taking control of the educational process, and this closes off our inherent desire to weigh every option before making a decision.
Is it a coincidence, then, that Feyerabend, Kuhn, and De Bono are flogging the same horse at the same time? I think that the present book is only recommended after a thorough reading of the latter classics, not before. Namely, when he states that there is no one scientific method, and therefore there is no scientific pauo it’s a little more complex than that.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
Modern philosophy of science has paid great attention to the understanding of scientific ‘practice’, in contrast to concentration on scientific ‘method’. Humans are generally quite defensive about their core beliefs and unwilling to accept direct feyerabebd on them.
Instead Feyerabend offers a constellation of polemics, beginning with an analysis of Galileo’s ‘confirmation’ of Copernicanism to show that real scientific practice is counterinductive, irrational, propagandistic, and riddled with feyerrabend. My favorite troll used to be Eel but this honor now goes to Feyerabend. Feyerabend quotes extensively from a multitude of authors that I know poorly or not at all, including philosophers of science Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Carnap, Duhemother philosophers Protagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Heidegger, Marx, Leninscientists, most of whom he claims to have read in the original Galileo, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Einstein, Bohr and classical literature Homer, also in the original.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge by Paul Karl Feyerabend
The trouble is, compared to more modern discoveries like DNA, we don’t actually know that much about Galileo when it comes to his celestial deductions. O wise Zen Master, please don’t hit me again. A lot of my thought on Reading Feyerbend was recommended to me because somebody who has heard me criticize the way “Science” with a capital S claims to be, one system, objective and free of cultural bias, as well as saying it can set standards for ethics and political thought, that I pretty much have the same view as Feyerbend about how the way science interacts with the current society is totally fucked.
Feyerabend should, undoubtedly, be praised for providing a scathing critique of the status of the scientific enterprise within contemporary society.
It wasn’t a popular position to take at the time it was written, and it’s still not much of a popular position today except among Creationists, perhaps. The way his philosophy in general and this book in particular have been set up can be interpreted in different ways.
Science, Sam Harris seems to believe, is the only system that produces knowledge. And that a lot of science is simply grasping in the dark. Plus I, like most scientists, don’t understand Latin or Greek.
Certainly science needs to stay creative, but the solution must not be looked for in the practices just mentioned.
Tratado Contra El Metodo : Paul K Feyerabend :
A Brecht stage hand who refutes scientific method and sticks his thumb in the eyes of the high priests of science. Geocentrismand by and large become unreasonable, nonsensical, and add to the deconstructional foreplay of scientific brainwashing. Given the thesis, it would have made more sense to focus on half a dozen discoveries from the c20th. Lacking Lakatos’s counter-arguments as balance, Feyerabend here reads as more provocative and idealistic than he may otherwise intend, and I believe this is important to realize before tac Feyerabend intended this book as the initial salvo in what he and fellow philosopher of science Imre Lakatos had hoped to be an on-going exchange, until the latter’s untimely death ended that possibility.
Also, apparently, a lot of his writings were recovered and nobody, if Feyerabend is to be trusted, ever found the schemes for Galileo’s telescope. It does provide vital space to every new theory but it still doesn’t show how a scientist can choose the new or the old theory, since the old decaying theory is basically at the same state with a new ad hoc theory because it can always be revitalized with a new discovery.
Want to Read saving…. I’ve been screaming this for years, despite not being a religious person. There’s no set of unwavering and indubitable rules or methods that science actually utilizes in practice; Scientific theories are often incommensurable in that they are composed of fundamentally different concepts that are not reducible to a common measure; Science as a whole has unduly been given a special status in society that it does not deserve, and it’s just another ideology and should consequently be separated from the state like religion.
New views thus strike out in new directions and frown upon the older problems. For example, if falsification were to be applied stringently we simply couldn’t have bioinformatics. After all, aren’t we better now? I am sure I would laugh at people who were saying the earth was moving because they saw some planets in some kind of weird new device that was clearly distorting how things really are.
Relativist polemic against scientific monopolies. Or how about having the FDA start endorsing homeopathy, voodoo, and witchcraft for dealing with medicinal concerns? In some ways, Feyerabend could have raised objections more metaphysically — that ideas have at their germination roots outside of a given domain — that culture plays a role in utilizing domains in one area to influence another — that science is a socially generated practice, on that mistakes methodology for reality — but in other ways, Feyerabend does well by sticking very close to his topic.
He shows how facts and their interpretation are in the eyes of the observer, and how scientists only see sometimes consciously and sometimes unconsciously the facts that fit their models. Feyerabend ritiene che l’euristica di Lakatos sia un anarchismo camuffato, conta dubito che quest’ultimo, influenzato com’era dalla dialettica hegeliana, potesse davvero elaborare una simile teoria.
He argues that there are basic, fundamental limitations on human knowledge which necessitate that facts be constructed from theories and not vice versa, and that this means that new problems can only be solved when given total freedom from the constraints of the dominant norms and theories.
Overall Feyerabeend am really impressed with this book and feyerabsnd approach fits with my own take of the world for now. How can we find a robust methodology that is compatible with the adoption of the heliocentric system, despite all the evidence to the contrary? For this reason, we cannot ignore old passed-over ideas on the assumption that they are wrong. His is ultimately a moral endeavor, and he believes that reason, objectivity, and theory as conceived by Western science and philosophy exercise an exclusionary tyranny upon our minds and persons which is substantively no different than that of religion or any other rigid ideology.
Feyerabend was born and educated in Vienna. Yet a large part of my work is playing around in an R console, looking for fun things, making pretty pictures, and drinking free coffee.
Now, I’m not going to say that I agree or disagree with Feyerabend. I honestly would read more by him. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. My library Help Advanced Book Search.