Paul Feyerabend’s Methodology of Science

 

Paul Feyerabend is an Austrian philosopher of science. He contributed to the field of the philosophy of science through the works that he has published; Against Method (1975), Science in a Free Society (1978) and Farewell to Reason (1987). His view of ‘high level theories’ which he referred instead of Kuhn’s concept of ‘paradigm’ covers the entire scientific context as it is holistic. For him, the underlying principle of science is the paradigm. Perception, experience and observation sentences are controlled by the particular paradigm and science is controlled by that paradigm. For instance, the paradigm shift of geocentric planetary system and heliocentric system can be mentioned. His work in the 1950s and 1960s (much of it collected in his Philosophical papers-1981), ‘contained studies in the development of the sciences’ (Brown, Collinson, & Wilkinson, 1998, p. 56). 

In Against Method, he claims that science is an anarchic one. Here the term anarchy refers to the epistemological anarchy. In this book, he summarized his argument into a theoretical critique which is followed by several historical case studies. This critique is the most important part when it comes to his methodology. His criticizes the view which says that there is only a single methodology which makes the scientific progress. He refused accept the methodological monism in science. As it has mentioned by him, there are no fixed universal rules in science. In Against Method he claims that ‘changes in science cannot proceed according to any specific method’ (Brown, Collinson, & Wilkinson, 1998, p. 56).

He used the historical case study of the transition from geocentric view to heliocentric world view in order to exemplarily show how scientific progress has happened without a methodological monism. It was impossible to think of a heliocentric model of the world during the period where geocentric world view was accepted. Naked-eye observations were unsupported to the heliocentric view. For that Galileo changed the way he observed celestial bodies. When Galileo used instrumental observation through telescope and found supporting evidences to the heliocentric, people thought that they are illusions made by the telescope. 

Feyerabend summed up his ‘methodology’ as ‘anything goes’. For Feyerabend, what should a scientist do is to go against the rules whenever possible. He believed that ‘so-called scientific observation terms ‘are not merely theory-laden…but fully theoretical’ (Brown, Collinson, & Wilkinson, 1998, p. 57). This provided one foundation for the critique of empiricism. 

Moreover, He goes back to Galileo to the state where he was trying to prove the heliocentric view (tower argument). There arose a question as if the earth moves around the sun, then why do things fall in a straight line. If the heliocentric theory is correct, then the object should fall a bit far from the tower because the earth is rotating. He challenged observation rather than following it. Galileo changed both his world view and the way to measure it. He made an Ad hoc theory as ‘relative motion’. Ad hoc theories are independent theories without evidences. Instead of stable observation and reason, Galileo used reverse induction, Ad hoc theories and he believed in his view as his methodology. This is what Feyerabend suggested as ‘anything goes’ and this is an adequate example taken form historical case studies to show that Feyerabend has rejected methodological monism. 

Scientific community that accepts Einstein’s relativity cannot accept the Newtonian worldview. Einstein sees the world as a connection between time and space. He introduced mass-energy equivalence. 

E=mc2                   E= Energy, M= Mass, C= The Speed of the light

Accompanying paradigms are both inconsistent and incommensurable. It is possible to analyze two examples to indicate the inconsistent nature of the paradigms. Firstly, Galileo’s and Newton’s theory can be compared. Galileo says that the natural state of an object is in a uniform motion. Objects have a velocity, which has a magnitude of zero. In contrast, Newton claims about a change in velocity, which is caused by force. He says that a body acted on a force will accelerate such that force equals mass times acceleration (F=ma). Both the corpuscular theory of light and wave theory are also inconsistent. Feyerabend claims that a paradigm becomes a world view. There is no connection between the period which was existed before the paradigm shift and the period which exists after the paradigm shift. Feyerabend accepted the methodological principles of empiricism, but he argued that neither of these arguments cannot be upholded. Feyerabend’s views can be summarized as following.

“Although philosophers of science refuse to admit it, there is a close link between science and myth.” 

“The view that science should be practiced in accordance with precise and universal rules are not only unrealistic, but also a dangerous one.”

"Scientists resolve problems not because of the magic of their method”

“Science is essentially an anarchic enterprise. ‘Method’ only retards the progress of science.” (Uyangoda, 2015, p. 77-78). 

Bibliography

Brown, S., Collinson, D., & Wilkinson, R. (Eds.). (1998). One-hundred Twentieth-Century Philosophers. New York: Routledge .

Fayerabend, P. (2010). Against Method. Verso .

Popper, K. R. (2014). The Logic of Scinetific Discovery. Martino Fine Books.

Uyangoda, J. (2015). Social Research-Philosophical and Methodological Foundations. Colombo 5: Social Scinetists Association .