DOCSLIB.ORG

Feyerabend's Irrationalist Approach Towards Explaining Scientific

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feyerabend's Irrationalist Approach Towards Explaining Scientific DOI 10.20544/HORIZONS.A.27.4.20.P13 UDC 165.6 329.285 FEYERABEND’S IRRATIONALIST APPROACH TOWARDS EXPLAINING SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS1 Danka Joveva, MA SMS „Slavcho Stojmenski“ Shtip [email protected] ABSTRACT The subject of this scientific is Feyerabend’s revolutionary model of explanation of the growth of scientific knowledge. Feyerabend criticizes the positivism, forgery and all rationalist attempts for discovering the strict rules of the scientific method. His attitudes are significant because they add a different, avant-garde picture of the scientific development causing interest in the scientific and philosophical circles. The main thesis in this paper is that the Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism cannot answer the question of scientific development. There is no clear picture about the direction of the scientific process, and it cannot say whether the science goes forward or backward, whether there is progress or not. It appears that this comes mainly from his anarchist position. The progress of science, according to him, depends on irrational elements, and one can contribute to the progress of the science by counterproductive actions only. He declares that consistency is an unreasonable condition of science and prefers hypotheses which are not consistent with facts, nor with the observational or experimental results. Feyerabend uses the non-existence of “bare / naked” facts and the incommensurability of theories as arguments for making the conclusion that the new scientific theories triumph in a completely irrational way. Key words: scientific progress, immortality of theories, methodological pluralism, counter-inductance, methodological anarchism. 1 original scientific paper 159 INTRODUCTION Of the many contemporary theories that concern themselves with the problems of the philosophy of science, the ones that propose revolutionary sentiments in regards to the interpretation of methodological and epistemological problems appear to be the most interesting. This contemporary epoch, among other things, has also seen discussions regarding the issues of the rationality of scientific knowledge and the problem of progress in science. One of the most well-known representatives of contemporary philosophy of science, who at the same time concerned himself with these problems, was Paul Feyerabend. He has been a radical critic of almost all traditional positions in science and epistemology, and has attempted to provide a new model of the very process of epistemology, and especially scientific epistemology. His teaching insists on renouncing any pretensions for absolute knowledge, and that our entire epistemology is the result of man who is led by desires, hopes, interests, fears and other irrational elements. Feyerabend thinks that many scientific decisions are not rooted in rationality, and that the selection between competing scientific theories is often irrational. This position would imply that the idea of scientific progress is brought under question, and that we can never ascertain whether science progresses or declines. As Feyerabend would put it, “Regarding science, reason cannot be universal and unreason cannot be excluded” (Feyerabend, 2000, p. 218). Feyerabend is attempting to weaken the position of science; according to him, it is but one of many forms devised by man to deal with the world around him, but not the only one and certainly not the best one. He thinks that there is no knowledge without chaos, and no progress without frequent rejections of reason. The ideas that comprise the basis of science today exist thanks to the prejudices, vanities, passions and other irrational elements that have clashed against reason in the past. According to him, one must employ a clash of ideas, a plurality of methods, logical incompatibilities, intra-theoretical and inter-theoretical inconsistencies and other irrational elements in order to reach new knowledge. The main idea of this paper is that the methodological anarchism of Feyerabend cannot conceive of any idea of scientific progress. The existence of irrational elements in the realization of fundamental scientific change presents the problem of the incommensurability of theories. It means that we cannot establish criteria for the preference of one scientific theory over another, which leads to the impossibility of setting up exact, operative criteria for selection between rival theories. FAYERABEND’S METHODOLOGICAL ANARCHISM In his famous work Against Method, Feyerabend notes that „science is, in essence, an anarchist endeavor: theoretical anarchism is more human and is 160 more likely to aid progress than its alternatives of law and order” (Feyerabend, 2000, p. 13). Expressing this sentiment at the very beginning of his work, he highlights that there is no possibility of devising uniform rules that will determine scientific research and guide the development of science. As the subtitle of his book suggests, Feyerabend is espousing an anarchist theory of knowledge. He considers anarchism to be a cure for epistemology and philosophy of science. Human nature is complex and has an unpredictable character; there are no strict rules that can be applied as guidance in life.According to him, history of science isn’t only comprised of facts and conclusions derived from facts, but instead, of ideas, interpretations of facts, problems caused by competing interpretations, errors and so on. Science, he suggests, doesn’t recognize “bare facts”, but the “facts” that enter our knowledge have been already perceived in a certain manner; therefore it follows that facts are mediated by ideas (Feyerabend, 2000, p. 15). It is therefore nonsensical to establish a science that will be governed by immutable rules, expressed by a language of exactness with a unified outlook on the world. The world which man inhabits is an unknown entity, which necessitates a position of openness for all possibilities and a wariness of a priori limitations. Therefore, Feyerabend considers, all universal standards and rigid traditions need to be rejected, embracing, instead, an absolute freedom of discussion. According to him, we shouldn’t fear that this sort of anarchist methodology and science, which would weaken concerns for law and order in science and society, will bring about chaos. “The nervous system of man is organized too well for that to happen” (Feyerabend, 2000, p. 17). Of course, there may come a time when reason will have to be given a temporary priority, a time when the wise choice would be to uphold reason’s rules to the exemption of everything else, however, according to Feyerabend, we don’t live in such a time today. On the other hand, this anarchist conception of scientific progress is interesting because it advocates for: - free thought unburdened by prejudice; - liberation from given norms and rules; - valuing science for being able to adequately explain and predict phenomena within the bounds of available experience; - awards complete confidence to the scholars and their interests; - putting trust in the sciences to be efficiently applied in reaching important practical goals. (Sinđelić, 2005) 161 IS THERE A PLACE FOR SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS IN FEYERABEND’S PHILOSOPY? In regards to the meaning of words such as “progress”, “advancement” or “improvement”, he makes a point of saying that “anyone can interpret these terms in their own ways and in accordance to the tradition to which they belong” (Feyerabend, 2000, p. 26). For him, there is only one principle that needs to be upheld, the principle of anything goes. Experts and laymen, professionals and dilettantes, truth seekers and liars are all invited to take part in shaping the contents of theories and provide their contribution to the enrichment of our culture. Feyerabend rejects the notion that we can devise rational criteria for scientific progress, and that we can only talk about the advancement of scientific discoveries in the wider context of the historical circumstances in which scientists find themselves. Science advances only when it contributes to the realization of the opportunities intended for the free development of individuals. As was already pointed out, Feyerabend analyzes the progress of science and suggests that the only principle that doesn’t stand in its way is anything goes, which can be ascertained by inspecting historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between ideas and actions. According to him, “there has not been a single rule, regardless of how plausible or how rigidly rooted in epistemology, that hasn’t been violated in a point in the past” (Feyerabend, 2000, p. 22). Feyerabend maintains that during the course of scientific discovery, no rule has remained universally valid and that rules need to be broken, since it is exactly the breaking of rules that enables scientific progress. However, he doesn’t say that we should proceed without any rules or standards, but strongly suggest that all rules have their limitations and no rule possesses an all-encompassing rationality. To support this assertion, Feyerabend points out to the following examples: the discovery of atomism in ancient times, the Copernican revolution, the rise of modern atomism (kinesthetic theory, quantum theory), the gradual growth of the wave theory of light and other episodes from the history of science, where scholars decided not to be limited by certain methodological rules, or intentionally breached those rules. This liberal practice, Feyerabend considers, is a fact and absolutely necessary for the growth of knowledge. For
Load more

Recommended publications
  • In the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend
    Durham E-Theses Pluralism and the 'Problem of Reality' in the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend KIDD, IAN,JAMES How to cite: KIDD, IAN,JAMES (2010) Pluralism and the 'Problem of Reality' in the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/864/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 Kidd Pluralism and the ‘Problem of Reality’ in the Later Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend Abstract Feyerabend’s later philosophy was a sustained defence of cultural and epistemic diversity. After Against Method (1975) Feyerabend argued that his rejection of methodological monism challenged the presumed unity and superiority of scientific knowledge and practices. His later philosophy was therefore dedicated to a reassessment of the merits of a wide range of ‘non-scientific’ traditions present throughout non-Western indigenous cultures.
    [Show full text]
  • Paul Feyerabend
    Against Method Fourth Edition Paul Feyerabend VERSO London • New York Analytical Index Being a Sketch of the Main Argument Introdnction 1 Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives. 1 7 This is shown both by an examination of historical episodes and by an abstract analysis of the relation between idea and action. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes. 2 13 For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance science by proceeding counterinductively. 3 17 The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual. 4 ~ There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge. The whole history of thought is absorbed into science and is used for improving every single theory. Nor is political interference rejected. It may be needed to overcome the chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo. xxx ANAL YTICAL INDEX 5 33 No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof ofprogress.
    [Show full text]
  • Kuhnian Incommensurability Between Two Paradigms of Contemporary Linguistics
    Kuhnian Incommensurability Between Two Paradigms of Contemporary Linguistics Philip Smith Ph.D. Thesis School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics The University of Sheffield March 2011 Slowly we are learning, We at least know this much, That we have to unlearn Much that we were taught, And are growing chary Of emphatic dogmas; Love like matter is much Odder than we thought. From 'Heavy Date' by W.H.Auden I must review my disbelief in angels. Brian Patten - Angel Wings Abstract This dissertation proposes a theory of reference for the language of scien- tific theories. This theory of reference looks at the nature of postulation in scientific theories, and shows that mental posits are metaphorical in na- ture. It is a hybrid of internalist and extensive reference theories. This, allied with the competing epistemological assumptions of competing schools of ltngutsttcs, can account for the existence of incommensurability across two paradigms of ltngutsttcs, The relationship between transformational generative grammar and socio- linguistics is vexed. Both claim the same object of study, but with radi- cally different methods and aims. This dissertation shows that the meta- phorical nature of the posits used in each leads to incommensurable vo- cabularies. Thomas Kuhn's notions of paradigms and incommensurability are used to elucidate this relationship. Chapter one proposes and explains the theory of reference. Chapter two defines the major areas of the thesis. Chapter three explores the history of linguists claiming that a particular area of linguistics instantiates a Kuhnian paradigm, and looks at arguments concerning the possibilities for studying language scientifically. Chapter four explores the epistemological bases of TGG and sociolinguistics, starting from Chomsky's claims to do 'Cartesian linguistics', and concludes that opposing epistemological com- mitments lead to incommensurability.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Vibrant & Broad African
    Library.Anarhija.Net Towards a Vibrant & Broad African-Based Anarchism Ashanti Alston Ashanti Alston Towards a Vibrant & Broad African-Based Anarchism 2003 Retrieved on 17 August 2015 from http://www.newformulation.org/3alston.htm lib.anarhija.net 2003 Contents Wole Soyinka’s Anarchism ................. 3 African Anarchism: The History of a Movement . 10 Conclusion .......................... 14 Notes ............................. 16 2 I am always on the search for cutting edge, challenging think- ing within anarchism and other fields of revolutionary theory: the search for how to get beyond ’stuck.’ As a Black anarchist I have looked for writings specifically related to the problems and chal- lenges that I face, and that my people face here in the United States, and that can help us organize for self-determination and destroy the very basis upon which all oppressive systems operate. Of the activist ”isms,” anarchism, at least in theory, promotes the kind of openness and risk-taking that actually encourages the constant re- generation necessary to meet new revolutionary challenges. The price to pay, often, is getting ”uncomfortable,” being ”jarred,” even in terms of what one understood as the anti-authoritarian or anar- chist canon. The two works reviewed here, Post-Colonial African Theory and Practice: Wole Soyinka’s Anarchism and African Anarchism: The His- tory of a Movement, come from authors trapped in vicious post- colonial hells. They have ”stretched their necks” to see andun- derstand differently in order to just ”breathe” and fight back. The stretching and openness to new information, new insights, is what keeps anarchism and other radical perspectives fresh and evolving to meet our planetary needs.
    [Show full text]
  • Rigid Strings and Flaky Snowflakes
    Language and Cognition http://journals.cambridge.org/LCO Additional services for Language and Cognition: Email alerts: Click here Subscriptions: Click here Commercial reprints: Click here Terms of use : Click here Rigid strings and aky snowakes GEOFFREY SAMPSON Language and Cognition / FirstView Article / June 2015, pp 1 - 17 DOI: 10.1017/langcog.2015.10, Published online: 23 June 2015 Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1866980815000101 How to cite this article: GEOFFREY SAMPSON Rigid strings and aky snowakes. Language and Cognition, Available on CJO 2015 doi:10.1017/langcog.2015.10 Request Permissions : Click here Downloaded from http://journals.cambridge.org/LCO, IP address: 78.143.198.117 on 05 Jul 2015 Language and Cognition (2015), Page 1 of 17 . doi:10.1017/langcog.2015.10 © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association, 2015 Rigid strings and fl aky snowfl akes GEOFFREY SAMPSON University of South Africa ( Received 26 February 2015 – Revised 15 April 2015 – Accepted 15 April 2015 ) Christina Behme, Evaluating Cartesian Linguistics: from historical antecedents to computational modeling (Potsdam Linguistic Investigations, vol. 12). Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2014. 1. A philosopher contemplates Chomsky Christina Behme, although now living in Canada, was born and educated in the former East Germany, where compulsory classes in dialectical materialism perhaps immunized her against accepting spurious intellectual authority just because those around her defer to it. A philosopher with particular interest in language, CB (as I shall refer to her) in this book takes apart the “Chomsky phenomenon” from a philosophical point of view. 1 CB’s initial concern, as her title indicates, is Chomsky’s claim (in Cartesian Linguistics , Chomsky, 1966 , and elsewhere) to be using the data of linguistics to revive Descartes’ rationalist account of human cognition, long out of favour in the English-speaking world.
    [Show full text]
  • Anarchism in Hungary: Theory, History, Legacies
    CHSP HUNGARIAN STUDIES SERIES NO. 7 EDITORS Peter Pastor Ivan Sanders A Joint Publication with the Institute of Habsburg History, Budapest Anarchism in Hungary: Theory, History, Legacies András Bozóki and Miklós Sükösd Translated from the Hungarian by Alan Renwick Social Science Monographs, Boulder, Colorado Center for Hungarian Studies and Publications, Inc. Wayne, New Jersey Distributed by Columbia University Press, New York 2005 EAST EUROPEAN MONOGRAPHS NO. DCLXX Originally published as Az anarchizmus elmélete és magyarországi története © 1994 by András Bozóki and Miklós Sükösd © 2005 by András Bozóki and Miklós Sükösd © 2005 by the Center for Hungarian Studies and Publications, Inc. 47 Cecilia Drive, Wayne, New Jersey 07470–4649 E-mail: [email protected] This book is a joint publication with the Institute of Habsburg History, Budapest www.Habsburg.org.hu Library of Congress Control Number 2005930299 ISBN 9780880335683 Printed in the United States of America CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 PART ONE: ANARCHIST SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY 7 1. Types of Anarchism: an Analytical Framework 7 1.1. Individualism versus Collectivism 9 1.2. Moral versus Political Ways to Social Revolution 11 1.3. Religion versus Antireligion 12 1.4. Violence versus Nonviolence 13 1.5. Rationalism versus Romanticism 16 2. The Essential Features of Anarchism 19 2.1. Power: Social versus Political Order 19 2.2. From Anthropological Optimism to Revolution 21 2.3. Anarchy 22 2.4. Anarchist Mentality 24 3. Critiques of Anarchism 27 3.1. How Could Institutions of Just Rule Exist? 27 3.2. The Problem of Coercion 28 3.3. An Anarchist Economy? 30 3.4. How to Deal with Antisocial Behavior? 34 3.5.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards a Vibrant & Broad African-Based Anarchism
    Towards a Vibrant & Broad African-Based Anarchism Ashanti Alston 2003 Contents Wole Soyinka’s Anarchism ......................... 3 African Anarchism: The History of a Movement ............. 8 Conclusion .................................. 11 Notes ..................................... 12 2 I am always on the search for cutting edge, challenging thinking within anar- chism and other fields of revolutionary theory: the search for how to get beyond ’stuck.’ As a Black anarchist I have looked for writings specifically related to the problems and challenges that I face, and that my people face here in the United States, and that can help us organize for self-determination and destroy the very basis upon which all oppressive systems operate. Of the activist ”isms,” anarchism, at least in theory, promotes the kind of openness and risk-taking that actually encourages the constant regeneration necessary to meet new revolutionary chal- lenges. The price to pay, often, is getting ”uncomfortable,” being ”jarred,” evenin terms of what one understood as the anti-authoritarian or anarchist canon. The two works reviewed here, Post-Colonial African Theory and Practice: Wole Soyinka’s Anarchism and African Anarchism: The History of a Movement, come from authors trapped in vicious post-colonial hells. They have ”stretched their necks” to see and understand differently in order to just ”breathe” and fight back. The stretch- ing and openness to new information, new insights, is what keeps anarchism and other radical perspectives fresh and evolving to meet our planetary needs. Wole Soyinka’s Anarchism Post-Colonial African Theory and Practice by Joseph Walunywa, a Kenyan stu- dent who wrote in requirement for a degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English at Syracuse University in New York, was a rare find.
    [Show full text]
  • Changing Anarchism.Pdf
    Changing anarchism Changing anarchism Anarchist theory and practice in a global age edited by Jonathan Purkis and James Bowen Manchester University Press Manchester and New York distributed exclusively in the USA by Palgrave Copyright © Manchester University Press 2004 While copyright in the volume as a whole is vested in Manchester University Press, copyright in individual chapters belongs to their respective authors. This electronic version has been made freely available under a Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC- ND) licence, which permits non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction provided the author(s) and Manchester University Press are fully cited and no modifications or adaptations are made. Details of the licence can be viewed at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ Published by Manchester University Press Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9NR, UK and Room 400, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for ISBN 0 7190 6694 8 hardback First published 2004 13 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Typeset in Sabon with Gill Sans display by Servis Filmsetting Ltd, Manchester Printed in Great Britain by CPI, Bath Dedicated to the memory of John Moore, who died suddenly while this book was in production. His lively, innovative and pioneering contributions to anarchist theory and practice will be greatly missed.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmentalism and an Anarchist Research Method Peter Burdon and James Martel
    13. Environmentalism and an anarchist research method Environmentalism and an anarchist research method Peter Burdon and James Martel In thinking about the way that liberal theory and legal practices have run aground when it comes to issues of environmentalism, alternative methods and approaches are highly desirable. On the surface, one of those alterna- tives, an anarchist legal method – and a concomitant research agenda that it produces – seems quite oxymoronic. Anarchism, it would seem, is the antithesis of a method.1 Anarchism seems given over to free form and spontaneity; it suggests that, particularly when it comes to the law, there is nothing for anarchists to say or do insofar as the law is all about order and predictability whereas anarchism is nothing of the kind. Yet, to make such a point is to concede a very basic liberal critique of anarchism; it offers that anarchism is chaotic and unsystematic. Liberalism prides itself as the most organized and rational of systems, whereas it often projects onto anarchism visions of Lord of the Flies, chaos and a total lack of organization. In fact, however, it is our argument that liberalism is an inherently chaotic system and that the arguments it makes about anarchist chaos are actually a projection and externalization of its own darker and disordered aspects.2 Because liberalism is above all involved with the prom- ulgation and protection of the market, it is, in fact in the service of an emi- nently chaotic system.3 The market ascribes winners and losers willy-nilly and it largely escapes the controls of human politics thus wreaking havoc, quite literally, on the planet.
    [Show full text]
  • A Deweyan Pragmatist Philosophy of Science
    UC San Diego UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Science and experience : a Deweyan pragmatist philosophy of science Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/08q037x9 Author Brown, Matthew J. Publication Date 2009 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO Science and Experience A Deweyan Pragmatist Philosophy of Science A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Philosophy by Matthew J. Brown Committee in charge: Professor Paul Churchland, Chair Professor Nancy Cartwright, Co-Chair Professor Michael Cole Professor Gerald Doppelt Professor Roddey Reid Professor Donald Rutherford 2009 Copyright Matthew J. Brown, 2009 Some rights reserved. Licensed under the United States Creative Commons (BY-NC-ND). The dissertation of Matthew J. Brown is approved, and it is acceptable in quality and form for publication on microfilm and electronically: Co-Chair Chair University of California, San Diego 2009 iii DEDICATION In memory of Professor Jon J. Johnston (1928-2008) Teacher, Mentor, Friend iv EPIGRAPH To work exclusively within the context provided by the sciences themselves is to ignore their vital context. The place of science in life, the place of its peculiar subject-matter in the wide scheme of materials we experience, is a more ultimate function of philosophy that is any self-contained reflection upon science as such. | John Dewey, Context and Thought (LW 6:19-20) v TABLE OF CONTENTS Signature Page................................... iii Dedication...................................... iv Epigraph......................................v Table of Contents.................................. vi List of Figures................................... ix Preface.......................................x Acknowledgements................................
    [Show full text]
  • Towards an Anarchist Sociology
    2 Jonathan Purkis To wards an anarchist sociology1 A serious scholar is one who takes the Pope at his word and discounts the words of rebels. A ranter is one who takes rebels at their word and discounts every word of the Pope. (Fredy Perlman, 1983: 183) Objectivism and relativism not only are untenable as philosophies, they are bad guides for fruitful cultural collaboration. (Paul Feyerabend, 1995: 152) Introduction The ‘politics’ of knowledge has long been a concern of the humanities and social sciences. The decisions taken about which areas of society are regarded as being worthy of study, how they should be researched and the relative usefulness of the findings raise many questions about power and how it is manifested within par- ticular societies. The ideological implications of these issues extend to question- ing the role of the academic just as much as the legitimacy of State agencies who might turn research recommendations into potentially harmful social policies. In recent decades such questions have become part of the Marxist project to look at the intellectual means of reproduction in modern capitalist societies, as much as they have informed a generation of feminist sociologists keen to critique the politics of knowledge for their patriarchal assumptions. At the same time, however, the neoliberal economic agenda, in the ascendancy since the late 1970s, has asked its own questions about the politics of knowledge, to the extent that it has posed serious challenges to both established academic practice and social- ist and feminist resistances to it. As both Zygmunt Bauman (1987) and George Monbiot (2000) have noted, in recent times the priorities within the academy have changed, and the interven- tion of corporate interests into the production of knowledge has raised ques- tions about its very constituency, particularly claims for ‘value freedom’.
    [Show full text]
  • Against Method (AM for Short)
    First published by New Left Books, 1975 Revised edition published by Verso 1988 Third edition published by Verso 1993 © Paul Feyerabend 1975, 1988, 1993 All rights reserved Verso UK: 6 Meard Street, London WIV 3HR USA: 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001-2291 Verso is the imprint of New Left Books British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data available ISBN 0-86091-48 1-X ISBN 0-8609 1 -646-4 US Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data available Typeset by Keyboard Services, Luton Printed and bound in Great Britain by Biddies Ltd, Guildford and King's Lynn Contents Preface vii Preface to the Third Edition IX Introductionto the Chinese Edition 1 Analytical Index 5 Introduction 9 Parts1-20 14 Postscript on Relativism 268 Index 273 Preface In 1970 Imre Lakatos, one of the best friends I ever had, corneredme at a party. 'Paul,' he said, 'you have such strange ideas. Why don't you write them down? I shall write a reply, we publish the whole thing and I promise you - we shall have lots of fun.' I liked the suggestion and started working. The manuscript of my part of the book was finished in 1972 and I sent it to London. There it disappeared under rather mysterious circumstances. lmre Lakatos, who loved dramatic gestures, notified Interpol and, indeed, Interpol found my manu­ script and returned it to me. I reread it and made some final changes. In February 1974, only a few weeks after I had finished my revision, I was informed of Imre's death.
    [Show full text]