Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge [Paperback]

Paul Feyerabend (Author)

Book Description

Publication Date: September 30, 1993 | ISBN-10: 0860916464 | ISBN-13: 978-0860916468 | Edition: 3

Modern philosophy of science has paid great attention to the understanding of scientific 'practice', in contrast to concentration on scientific 'method'. Paul Feyerabend's acclaimed work, which has contributed greatly to this new emphasis, shows the deficiencies of some widespread ideas about the nature of knowledge. He argues that the only feasible explanations of scientific successes are historical explanations, and that anarchism must now replace rationalism in the theory of knowledge. The third edition of this classic text contains a new preface and additional reflections at various points in which the author takes account both of recent debates on science and on the impact of scientific products and practices on the human community. While disavowing populism or relativism, Feyerabend continues to insist that the voice of the inexpert must be heard. Thus many environmental perils were first identified by non-experts against prevailing assumptions in the scientific community. Feyerabend's challenging reassessment of scientific claims and understandings are as pungent and timely as ever.

Editorial Reviews

Review

""Against Method is morder than a book: it is an event."" Archives de Philosphie ""A brilliant polemic"" New Scientist ""Ad evestating attack on the claims of philosophy to legislate for scientific practice."" New Society

About the Author

Paul Feyerabend, Professor of Philosophy at UC, Berkley, and Professor of the Philosphy of Science at te Federal Institute of technology at Zurich, died in 1994. His recent books include Philosophical Papers and Farewell to Reason.

Product Details

• Paperback: 279 pages
• Publisher: Verso; 3 edition (September 30, 1993)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0860916464
• ISBN-13: 978-0860916468
• Product Dimensions: 8.3 x 5.1 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 13.6 ounces
• Average Customer Review: 4.7 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (21 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #756,318 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

87 of 99 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Anything Goes January 11, 2001

By Frank Bierbrauer

Format:Paperback

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 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 Read more ›

44 of 53 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars Why science and why not astrology or voodoo? December 14, 2004

By Dean

Format:Paperback

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 individuals are drawn into an institution where they are likely to spend their energy on publishing papers in obscure journals (of which millions of pages are published weekly), and their talent geared at solving questions important only to a tiny part of the community (mainly other academics). (To some extent they become like medieval monks, only that medieval monks did not hold their annual conferences at the most expensive vacation resorts of the Mediterranean.) Thus science, even in ideal circumstances (that is neglecting the possibility of corruption, nepotism, etc.), can be a major obstacle to the spontaneous flow of human creativity.

All in all the issues raised in the book are likely to become more important in the future, since the position of science as the key to humanity's salvation or progress is less and less taken for granted unlike for much of the twentieth century (at least in the West).

A shortened sequel to this book is "Science in a free society", where much of the details are not elaborated but the ideas are stressed. Read more ›

35 of 44 people found the following review helpful

5.0 out of 5 stars A wonderful polemical critique of scientific reductionism May 15, 1999

By ravi narayan <[e-mail]>

Format:Paperback

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.

64 of 84 people found the following review helpful

3.0 out of 5 stars Troubliing to say the least! February 6, 2003

By Kevin Currie-Knight TOP 500 REVIEWERVINE™ VOICE

Format:Paperback

Paul Feyerabend, in writing this book during the anti-authoritarian, hippie infested, mid 60's was, like Kuhn, just asking for heavy misinterpretation. This should make us want to read the book all the more. Feyerabend, as you will discover, is NOT anti-science, Feyerabend is NOT anti-reason and for god's sake, FEYERABEND IS NOT A SUBJECTIVIST! What he is advocating is scientific anarchism, meaning: science does not proceed by any set of rules, criterion or methods. So, as may suprise you, Feyerabend is not even that contraversial.

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. Read more ›