International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) Volume 4 Issue 2, February 2020 Available Online: www.ijtsrd.com e-ISSN: 2456 – 6470 Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress in Science in Against Method (1993) and the Tyranny of Science (2011) Nyuykongi John Paul. PhD Department of Educational Foundations, Faculty of Education, the University of Bamenda, Bamenda, Cameroon ABSTRACT How to cite this paper : Nyuykongi John The epistemological problem associated with Karl Paul Feyerabend as a Paul "Feyerabend, Pluralism and Progress philosopher of Science resides beneath the fact that different critics of his in Science in Against Method (1993) and works give divers interpretations of them. His works and the accounts they the Tyranny of Science (2011)" Published present have no common structure. This plurality and conflictual in International interpretations of him makes it difficult, if not impossible to pin him to a Journal of Trend in particular tradition in the Philosophy of Science. For this reason, while some of Scientific Research his critics consider him to be a relativist, to some, he is a Dadaist, a and Development confusionist and an anarchist, yet others think of Feyerabend as the worst (ijtsrd), ISSN: 2456- enemy of Science. This diversity of interpretation of Feyerabend, in my 6470, Volume-4 | opinion, only goes to reassure us of our reading of him. That is, Feyerabend is Issue-2, February IJTSRD30060 closely associated with pluralism than anything else. My aim, in this paper is 2020, pp.470-478, URL: thus propose a thesis and attempt a justification. The thesis is that; my reading www.ijtsrd.com/papers/ijtsrd30060.pdf of Against Method, (1993) and The Tyranny of Science, (2011), justifies the thesis above. This perspective, unlike the others, is more holistic and inclusive. Copyright © 2019 by author(s) and Without agreeing with his poists about science and its method, I contend that International Journal of Trend in Scientific his pluralist claims in the philosophy of science art not hard to find. My Research and Development Journal. This examples stem, first, from the diversity of interpretations, and the conflicting is an Open Access views of his critics. Second, I consider the titles of the two works under article distributed consideration, to illustrate his criticism of the scientism and Methodism of under the terms of Modern Science on the one hand, and his defence of plurality of methods and the Creative Commons Attribution theories. Finally, I conclude that contrarily to critics who label him the worst License (CC BY 4.0) enemy of science, anarchist or a confusionist, I think that, Feyerabend (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by exaggerated his criticism of Modern Science and his defence of pluralism when /4.0) he claimed to see no difference between science, myths and religion. However, I go further to contend that this comparison does not eclipse his pluralist position. It rather exaggerates it. That is why; I term him, an extreme pluralist to say the least. KEYWORDS: Feyerabend, Pluralism, Science, Scientific Method, Scientific Progress INRODUCTION The name Karl Paul Feyerabend means different things to misconstrued by many. A study of his works reveals that he different persons. Critics of his works suggest diverse views is a Pluralist, to be precise, a methodological pluralist. as to what his position is vis-a-vis Science. Some refer to him Evidences of his pluralist position vis-à-vis science can be as an anarchist, while others consider him to be a relativist, traced in his first and last major works, viz; Against Method, yet to some he is simply the worst enemy of science. 1 This and The Tyranny of Science. What is more important is that, diversity of answers is confirmed by Malolo Dissake who our reading reveals that, to Feyerabend, this pluralism is opines that the difficulty in interpreting Paul Feyerabend has indispensable to progress in science. In fact, he argues in the caused so many to label him with names that rather add to opening paragraph of the first chapter of Against Method that the misunderstanding of his thought. 2 In the same vein, Eric the idea of a method that contains firm, unchanging, and Obeheim, considering the plurality of interpretations given absolutely binding principles for conducting the business of to Feyerabend’s works argue that, it is difficult if not science meets considerable difficulty when we confront it, or impossible to place Feyerabend under a single tradition. 3 On put it at par with the results of historical research. 4 At this the contrary, we find that Feyerabend has been point, one poses the question; who is Karl Paul Feyerabend? Paul Feyerabend was born in January 13 th 1924 in Vienna 1 See Theocharis, T., and M. Psimopoulos, M., ‘Where Science Austria and died in February 11 th 1994. His encounter with Has Gone Wrong’, 1987, Even a collection on papers on Karl Raymond Popper influenced his Doctoral thesis in Feyerabend code named The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays which he attacked the very foundations of Positivism. From on the Philosophy of Feyerabend, Munevar and Lamb, 2000. thence, he became too critical about scientific proceedings, 2 Malolo, E.D., Feyerabend, Epistemology, Anarchism and the rejected the dogmatic use of specific rules in the sciences and Free Society, Paris, PUF., 2001, p. 7. advocated for a pluralistic method in the practice of Science. 3 Feyerabend, P.K., The Tyranny of Science, Edited and with introduction, by Eric Oberheim, Cambridge Polity Press, 2011, p., viii. 4 Feyerabend, P.K., Against Method, London, Verso, 1993, p. 9. @ IJTSRD | Unique Paper ID – IJTSRD30060 | Volume – 4 | Issue – 2 | January-February 2020 Page 470 International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development (IJTSRD) @ www.ijtsrd.com eISSN: 2456-6470 What then do we mean by progress in Science or scientific the history of science is always more varied and many sided. progress? The term scientific progress, suggests two At this juncture I assert that this work justifies the claim that positions: progress with regards to the amelioration of the Feyerabend is a pluralist. I may, and do disagree with his predictive efficiency of Science, and progress from the stand somewhat extremist pluralist stance on Science and point of the quest for the addition of the number of truth progress, but my opinion and that of others, I claim, only available. In other words, progress here, is defined from how goes a long way to justify his pluralist stance. A historical close science leads humanity to truth. This is because; from study of his works attests to that fact. Second, it is aimed at the teleological perspective, as advocated by the realists, arguing, with evidence especially from Against Method and scientific progress is an indication of an upward thrust The Tyranny of Science, that progress in science is directly towards a finality which is truth. Antithetically, the proportional to the adoption of a pluralist approach towards evolutionist perspective or the anti-realist position of the practice of science. At this juncture, the question is: How scientific progress demonstrates an amelioration of the does pluralism positively influence progress in science as predictive efficiency of Science. This perspective looks at Feyerabend claims? scientific progress from its effectiveness in attaining to the needs of humanity. While philosophers of modern science Feyerabend and Methodological Pluralism in Against such as Descartes, Newton and Bacon have variously stated Method principles which must be respected to ensure scientific As mentioned in the introduction, Against Method is one of progress, Feyerabend on his part is categorical to the fact Paul Feyerabend’s major works. In this work, Feyerabend is that Science is assured of progress only when scientific critical of the claims that science relies on fixed rules and practice adopts a plurality of approaches. principles to progress. That is, Feyerabend does not see how fixed and unchanging rules in the practice of science will Pluralism as an old term in philosophy has proponents in advance the latter. Rather, this stifles progress. Also, the title Ancient philosophy such as Empedocles, Anaxagoras, and the of the book speaks for itself; Against Method . This title is atomists, (Leucippus and Democritus). They maintained that, interpreted to mean, arguments against the uniqueness and reality was made up of a multiplicity of entities. Adherents to universality of the scientific method. In order words, this this doctrine set them in opposition to the monism of the book presents arguments against methodological monism. Eleatic school (Parmenides), which thought that reality was By implication, he defends the contrary of methodological impermeable unity and unbroken solidarity. 5 In monism, that is, methodological pluralism. To term him a Epistemology or the Philosophy of Science, the pluralist methodological pluralist is also, corroborative of his claim ideology sees nature as many sided and thus cannot be that: “this book [ Against Method] proposes a thesis and studied from a single and universal position. This doctrine is draws consequences from it. The thesis is: the events, opposed not only to monism, but also to dualism, and holds procedures and results that constitute the sciences have no that it is impossible to reduce reality to one. Methodological common structure.” 8 It should be noted that instead of pluralism, an approach typical of Feyerabend, is the position ‘science’, Feyerabend uses ‘sciences’. This means that, he that there is no single and universal method applicable to the does not see how one can talk of science in singular. To him, practice of science in all places and all epochs. By way of the sciences are plural, representing the plurality of nature. example, Feyerabend holds that scientific observations in They have no common structure because reality, which is the different periods were fully theoretical according to radically object of Science, is viewed from diverse perspectives.