Rating: 
Summary: Anything goes - but where?
Review: "How can an enterprise depend on culture in so many ways, and yet produce such solid results? Most answers to this question are either incomplete or incoherent. Physicists take the fact for granted. Movements that view quantum mechanics as a turning-point in thought - and that include fly-by-night mystics, prophets of a New Age, and relativists of all sorts - get aroused by the cultural component and forget predictions and technology."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.
Rating: 
Summary: Is science the opium of the people?
Review: 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) 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. The situation is even worse nowadays than in the times of Einstein, or Newton, since science has become a business in which producing bulk is favoured at the expense of 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 anarcy of ideas where science, religion, voodoo live side by side, and everyone takes from them what s/he needs at any given time.
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for all of us who've been duped by science
Review: Against Method is a frontal assault on our culture's religious-like worship of "science" and "the scientific method". Feyerabend dismantles science as evolutionary biologists do to creationism. Feyerabend humorously presents his take on a glut of historical evidence that shows us science has no monopoly on the truth. Even during the last century, science's heyday, successive theories (relativity, quantum physics,etc.) are contradictory in terminology yet complementary in development and practice. The western world's tools of knowledge do not simply reveal "truth" or "prove" ideas, we construct systems of world interpretation that are impregnated with politics, myth, and emotion. Feyerabend argues that we must separate science and state, just as we do church and state. Best of all, each sentence is a satire of all snobbish, academic, and droning texts. Do not take only Feyerabend's word on this subject, check out Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and other critical historians of science.
Rating:
Summary: Essential reading for all of us who've been duped by science
Review: Against Method is a frontal assault on our culture's religious-like worship of "science" and "the scientific method". Feyerabend dismantles science as evolutionary biologists do to creationism. Feyerabend humorously presents his take on a glut of historical evidence that shows us science has no monopoly on the truth. Even during the last century, science's heyday, successive theories (relativity, quantum physics,etc.) are contradictory in terminology yet complementary in development and practice. The western world's tools of knowledge do not simply reveal "truth" or "prove" ideas, we construct systems of world interpretation that are impregnated with politics, myth, and emotion. Feyerabend argues that we must separate science and state, just as we do church and state. Best of all, each sentence is a satire of all snobbish, academic, and droning texts. Do not take only Feyerabend's word on this subject, check out Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, and other critical historians of science.
Rating:
Summary: A wonderful polemical critique of scientific reductionism
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: The other side of the coin
Review: Feyerabend provides scientists with a challenge to rational formal thought. I found his "rock the boat" style enjoyable. If you want to hear the "same old story" about scientific methods, look elsewhere. I expect that you will understand science better after reading this book although you may have to give up some cherished oversimplifications.
Rating:
Summary: Anything Goes
Review: 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
Rating:
Summary: Troubliing to say the least!
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Lessons in scientific anarchism
Review: Philosophy of science can be fun at times. This book proves it. Feyerabend wanted to shock the scientific community when he wrote it, and was very good at it. What are the main theses of the book? First, "the" scientific method does not exist. Scientists have to invent new methodologies on their way to discovery. Second, sometimes progress requires theories that contradict facts as scientists perceive them. Third, sometimes it requires irrational arguments in order to get your point across in science. Fourth, science does not deserve a special status in a social debate. To many scientists, these ideas would sound provocative even expressed in the politest of manners. But that was not Feyerabend's style. On the contrary, Feyerabend overdid many of his statements ("The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes"), and he made rude remarks. Some of his statements are not very well supported by arguments. That, of course, is hardly surprising for someone who defends some irrationality in science. But it will not convince a hard-boiled rationalist. Also, Feyerabend's exaggerations made it easier for his critics to criticize him. And still, Feyerabend knew what he was talking about. Scientists are indeed sloppier and more irrational than they pretend to be. Galilei's statement that the earth rotates around its axis did contradict the "fact" that nobody ever noticed any influence of this rotation. And it was not science that first pointed out the dangers of environmental pollution. Conclusion: Against Method is a classic, and it deserves it. It's a very interesting book for those who know how to read it.
Rating:
Summary: Difficult reading, but well worth it
Review: The first half, which sets up the points the author makes in the second half is brutal. However, when Feyerabend gets around to making his point you see it was all worth it. If the front nine wasn't so brutal, I'd give it a five.
|
