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.
|Published (Last):||21 February 2005|
|PDF File Size:||10.22 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.45 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Feyerabend’s argument is that, essentially, Lakatos’ more liberal versions of some of Popper’s ideas are so liberal that, “in so far as the methodology of research programmes is ‘rational,’ it does not differ from anarchism. Nov 03, Mladen rated it it was amazing. It’s too soon after completing this book to know about the lingering part, but it passed all of the other tests.
I can’t agree with him at all. It wasn’t just the church, says Feyerabend, that criticised him but also his contemporary scholars. Let’s not forget however that the book is called “against method” and not “against science”. Fascinating idea and he fleshes it out much more than I described but he admits that it’s just a hypothesis that can’t be confirmed.
Reading it now, it offered me a somewhat diluted impact. The analysis here is often mistaken, but it is not inherently flawed.
Tratado Contra El Metodo : Paul K Feyerabend :
But if it were only the extensive range of sources, I wouldn’t feel contrq worried. As an analytical philosopher, with a ‘rationalist’ bend, he may be too idealistically attached to a conception of human reason. To carry conviction, modern scientific reasoning is expected to be couched in mathematical terms, even if new mathematical ideas have to be introduced to express it.
Sometimes, a question simply isn’t available from a given point of view because its context is not available. Often, these are the same thing. The strengths of opponents and weaknesses of the idea are lost and what once had to be qualified and carefully argued as an “enemy theory” is now taken for granted and may even be taken as platitude.
Against Method is Paul Feyerabend’s metdoo, brilliant treatise on the tenuous relation between scientific theory and practice.
I had to look up quite a few English words incommensurable, counter-inductive, etc. Humans are generally quite defensive about their core beliefs and unwilling to accept direct criticism on them. Broken down, the natural sciences have always been connected with theory, experiment and observation. This approach challenges science’s unassailable claim to the purveyor of all knowledge. Stop giving tax dollars to scientifically-minded institutions like the National Institute of Health, effectively abolishing it altogether?
From that point on, mastery begins when we start to release ourselves from technique in order to be more appropriate to whatever situation we find ourselves in, simply because technique is a pedagogical tool, and its rigid organization will make certain acts impossible because they are incommensurable with that fl.
There is a break in between how we do science and how we present it to the public – for example, the structure of a scientific publiction has absolutely nothing to do with how the actual results were obtained. In order for this to work, the new theory e. Society will be improved immensely!
Divorcing them from their stories discards a great deal of important information. Some theories prove utilitarian, others not so much.
Standards are more than arbitrary, historically determined, totalitarian-like, rationalist schemes. Significant parts of it are responses to debates and other sl that aren’t always introduced.
Tratado Contra El Metodo
His major works include Against Method publis Paul Karl Feyerabend was an Austrian-born philosopher of science best known for his work as a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, where he worked for three decades — What a breath of fresh air! Clntra introduction of rigid tests, the spreading awareness of problems like the multiple comparisons problem, too small sample sizes and more, the availability of online anonymous comments etc.
Taking a radically different perspective on the aesthetics of what feyerrabend is, Feyerabend attack one of the scared cows of science and mathematics — that of consistency. Science is a human activity after all. If we have a theory that turns out to be self-contradictory, it will have a difficult time surviving the the context of justification. A lot of my thought on Reading Feyerbend was recommended to me because somebody who has heard me criticize the way “Science” with a capital S claims to be, one system, objective and free of cultural bias, as well as saying it can set standards for ethics and political thought, that I pretty much have the same view as Feyerbend about how the way science interacts with the current society is totally fucked.
My initial impression of the book was that it was a postmodernist rant about the evil of science. Should we not desire any particular agency, we should embrace any idea for what it is worth, at the time that we need it. Instead of the cntra connection between ideas of rationality and scientific method on which many thinkers would base their understanding of science on, Feyera Originally published on my blog fejerabend in December This is might not seem fair except that in Feyerabend’s case his project is explicitly political — he calls himself an “epistemological anarchist” yet, weirdly for a self-professed anarchist, seems to value JS Mill above any other philosopher.
Feyerabend is right to reject “naive falsification. Funding aside, how does one come up with these irrational ideas in the first place?
Mar 03, Christopher Roberts rated it it metdo amazing Shelves: All three must be unified and quickly lead to new insights and hypotheses, becoming the engine that fuels understanding.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
Although I do not agree with all that he says, in some parts he is too radical for me, and I am not on-board for his view of incommensurability, it was still a fascinating, eye-opening read.
I would claim that this argument is self-defeating because if anything goes in science, anything can be construed as science and therefore no line can be drawn between science and not-science. The universe as rationally intelligible in the modern senseand 3.
Yes, we may need to print new books, change university courses, etc but perhaps we must rethink such rigid investments instead of compromising on the ideas.