Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Against Method (1975)by Paul Feyerabend
Filosofía - Clásicos (200) Loading...
Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book. No current Talk conversations about this book. In many ways, this is quite a magnificent book. It is not an easy read, and in the next few days I will write a more detailed review. It is not an easy book to read, and there were times when I wondered if he would ever move beyond Aristotle and Galileo. However, once you get into the second half of the book, Paul Feyerabend started to pull all the threads together. While he did not examine how the process has worked in the 20th century, and this is a shame, he demonstrated how scientific progress is not always as methodical as it seems to be! At the end, he spelled out some of his own beliefs, and this raised the book to a higher dimension than I had initially thought possible. It is not a book for the faint of heart but stay with it and you will be rewarded. One reason for scientist’s distrust of rhetoric is Paul Feyerabend's “Epistemological Anarchism”. Feyerabend, reportedly developed this view after discovering that his acting skills honed in his earlier life enabled him to win philosophical arguments regardless of which side he was arguing for. The trouble with that is not just that scientists aren't good at rhetoric, or aren't trained in it, but that we are actively encultured to believe that good rhetoric is actively immoral. When an argument is won or lost of the basis of who is the best rhetorician, then the truth is immaterial to which way the argument goes - and we couldn't have that - the wrong argument must always loose, whoever presents it and the correct one win. Of course the implicit (but false) belief here is that if the facts are presented, unadorned by any form of persuasion, the truth will always win out. To be fair, this belief is also often shared by the public - just look at the distrust of lawyers - the best lawyers can win an argument for which side they are assigned to, and the public distrust this. Of course, these are all fair points. But yet lawyers continue to 'nefariously' win the arguments they're assigned to, and politicians continue to garner votes on their abilities to "win hearts and minds". Science communicators, of necessity, need to get in on this. I don't think it's a false belief "that if facts are presented, unadorned by any form of persuasion, the truth will always win out." I believe in both a universal standard of truth and 'the ideal speech situation'. The trouble is precisely that it is an ideal. No one has perfect powers of reasoning and it is impossible for facts to be presented unadorned by any form of persuasion. Unfortunately, power is present in all argument. It can even be present in the assigning of 'facts'. Science communicators need to acknowledge this unavoidably imperfect state of affairs and use rhetoric for the right reason. Contains a lot of totally excellent ideas. Validity of arguments aside, Against Method is sorely needed criticism of method and scientism. Using Galileo as an example Feyerabend talks about the arationality of scientific progress, and incommensurability of theory. I felt like I understood mmmaybe 50% of the book, but I know that what I got from it will be in the forefront of my mind. Anyway, I'm sure i'll come back and read it later after tackling Kuhn, Bhaskar, Lakatos, etc. I like Paul Feyeraband. I like his ideas. I want to agree with him. Wait, I do agree with him, but not because he presented a solid argument for his case. I agree with him because I like his ideas, and I want to believe them. So I give the ideas in this book 5 stars. 5 selfish, unabashed stars. The book itself, however, I give 3. Damn. What could have been a great, clear, exposition of his ideas, with wonderfully clear and lively examples to back them up, is not present here. I thought this book would give a lot of the history of philosophy, and easy to understand explanations of other philosophy of science ideas. I could have imagined him describing a time in science, and talking about the main characters and what their ideas were and what was at stake, etc. and for him to show that these great people during whatever period in time discovered something incredible in science, yet went totally against any 'scientific method'. BUT that doesn't happen here. Instead Feyeraband talks a lot about Galileo. A LOT. But Galileo is neat, and it helps to support some of Paul's ideas. But... there is way too much Galileo. I would have LOVED to hear more examples of when scientists throughout time discovered 'facts' and 'truths' through completely unscientific means. Even his treatment of Galileo isn't that great. He skims over some details that I would have found really interesting, and which I require in order to follow his arguments. UGH, and so many asides. I stopped reading those eventually. I love you Paul, but damnit I wish you had written a better book. no reviews | add a review
Belongs to Publisher Series
Paul Feyerabend's globally acclaimed work, which sparked and continues to stimulate fierce debate, examines the deficiencies of many widespread ideas about scientific progress and the nature of knowledge. Feyerabend argues that scientific advances can only be understood in a historical context. He looks at the way the philosophy of science has consistently overemphasized practice over method, and considers the possibility that anarchism could replace rationalism in the theory of knowledge. This updated edition of the classic text includes a new introduction by Ian Hacking, one of the most important contemporary philosophers of science. Hacking reflects on both Feyerabend's life and personality as well as the broader significance of the book for current discussions. No library descriptions found.
|
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresMelvil Decimal System (DDC)501Natural sciences and mathematics General Science Philosophy and theoryLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
A number of examples and arguments from the work of Gallileo, as well as other scientists support the claims of this "Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge" over the work of Popper and those who give a more staid account of the scientific enterprise.
Originally written to be a dialogue with another piece proposing counter-arguments from his sparring-partner Imre Lakatos, which was not produced due to his untimely death (Letters between them have however been published elsewhere). It is difficult to read in places, but worth the effort.
Recommended for anyone with an interest in the philosophy of science, or who works in science. Anything Goes. ( )