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.

Author: Mezisho Shaktikazahn
Country: Thailand
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Travel
Published (Last): 21 March 2005
Pages: 167
PDF File Size: 12.74 Mb
ePub File Size: 14.59 Mb
ISBN: 610-7-94504-844-4
Downloads: 65729
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Groshura

Feyerabend should, undoubtedly, be praised for providing a scathing critique of the status of the scientific enterprise within contemporary society.

Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge by Paul Karl Feyerabend

Feyerabend’s line of thought seems to be that if “anything goes” as he glibly puts it in science, science has no oaul claims to knowledge and that other ways of knowing should be respected. After military service during World War II and further study at the University of London, he returned to Vienna as a lecturer at paaul university.

A theory which contradicts an accepted basic statement must be abandoned, 2. Where I don’t agree with Feyerabend in the slightest is his demand to split science from politics – I can understand where he’s coming from, I guess up until the 80s the results of science where set in stone.

Theories, say, like general and special relativity which affect the overthrow of a comprehensive and well-entrenched point-of-view, like Newtonian mechanics, and take over after its demise, are initially restricted to a fairly narrow domain of facts. The whole thing could be used to back up the flimsy claims of quacks.

He explains in the last chapter of his book that since he showed that science is almost a myth, it shouldn’t be taught like a gospel in schools. Truth and meaning are perhaps two of the most polarizing issues one can write about.

Looking to them for assistance, particularly in times of new or unexplained data, could prove to be helpful. To view it, click here.

For me as a scientist reading Against Method is freeing. Most books that attempt to do so simply end up pandering to their already faithful disciples just how many evangelicals do you think have read The Gold Delusion? Any attempt to censor an idea, however unpopular it is, will result in stifling human progress.


Using that phenomenon as a start, I think how I can prove or disprove it – find one way to prove it – and write the paper. Relativist polemic against scientific monopolies. In fact, there is not one single rule that remains valid under all circumstances and not a single agency to which ad hoc hypotheses or other appeals can always be injected.

Thus anarchism is not only possible, it is necessary both for internal progress of science and for the development of our culture as a whole. Jan 16, Christine Dantas rated it liked it Shelves: The predictions then must be confirmed by experiment and explained coherently by theory i.

To do a comparison in a fundamental level you ‘d have to come up with an even more fundamental theory that contains the two. Feyerabend does a service to the history and philosophy of science when he says that science should be prepared to overthrow its own past conceptions.

Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge

Feyerabend is right to reject “naive falsification. Feb 18, Oliver Wood rated it did not like it. I think this is true ckntra science, and especially true of physics. All ad hoc hypotheses are strictly forbidden. Instead of keeping science confined in its own little community Feyerabend breaks boundaries and intertwines disciplines.

For example, if falsification were to be applied stringently we simply couldn’t have bioinformatics. That was my initial impression. Perhaps the point he was trying to make was there is no Archimedean point for us to survey which tradition is better than which.

We must learn the basics to define what the modality is. Science has enveloped every part of society from jails Correctional facilities now! Argument occurs and only the results are passed on. Counterinduction sounds strangely like “a rule that remains valid under all circumstances,” no? To summarize his poin This took forever to read, not because the contents were boring, but because most of it went way over my head.


But in an era where workers’ rights have been massively eviscerated, scientific research grotesquely corporatized, and in which a radically anti-rational American right has used its influence to prevent environmental justice and declare unilateral war in the Middle East, the argument that science fails to serve society just doesn’t stand.

One way is to assume a competing theory is correct and discuss what must change. In essence, they are accredited failures. Only because the new idea was presented with charm, humor, thinly or not so thinly veiled non sequiturs and what it symbolized. Against Method is a unsystematic book which doesn’t always posit an argument so much as ask a lot of questions. It seems clear to me that all attempts to “explain science” have, to date, been unsuccessful usefulness of these accounts is up feyerxbend debate of course but none are without problems.

Feyerabend doesn’t explicitly make these claims–except, I think, saying that we should teach “magic” in public schools–but they are natural consequences of his view, nonetheless.

However, there are reasons which make it a bad example to use as a paradigm of scientific practice. And don’t let yourself be ideologized by anything, not even science.

File:Feyerabend Paul Tratado contra el – Monoskop

Nonetheless, any cut we calibrate to is simultaneously a distortion of the very object of study, because it casts it in a certain relationship. On the one hand, it was thought that the celestial bodies were divine in that they were expected to mteodo in orderly, lawful ways. 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 inconsistencies.