Lecture Six : Feyerabend

1
Lecture Six Feyerabend Relativism

• Dr Emma Tobin
• Bristol Philosophy

2
Shared AssumptionsInductivism (Bacon)
Falsificationism (Popper)

• (1) Scientific knowledge is cumulative,
  progressive and has a definite trajectory.
• (2) Science is (or will be) unified.
  (Reductionism)
• (3) There is a demarcation criterion.
• (4) Observation experiment has a crucial role.
• (5) We can evaluate the evidence for a hypothesis
  (a) by the logic of confirmation or (b) by
  assessing whether it is falsifiable.
• (6) The contexts of Discovery Justification
  should be distinguished. The latter is more
  important.
• (7) Scientific terms are meaningful.
• (8) Science is rational.

3
The Kuhnian Account of Science

• (1) Scientific knowledge is not cumulative, does
  not follow a linear trajectory.
• (2) Science may never be unified because theories
  are incommensurable.
• (3) There is no objective demarcation criterion.
  It is the decision of the scientific community.
• (4) Observation experiment is always
  theory-laden and subject to a paradigm. It should
  not be taken too seriously.
• (5) Evidence for a hypothesis is subject to our
  background paradigm.
• (6) The contexts of Discovery Justification are
  both relevant to the epistemology of science.
• (7) Scientific terms are meaningful only within
  paradigms and not across paradigms.
• (8) Science is irrational.

4
Feyerabend (1924 - 1994)
5
Scientific Anarchism

• There is no universal scientific method.
• Science is essentially an anarchic enterprise.
• Anarachism is more likely to encourage scientific
  progress than is its law and order alternatives.
• There is only one principle that can be defended
  anything goes!

6
Historical Evidence

• The development of the Copernican view by
  Galileo.
• We can say today that Galileo was on the right
  track, for his persistent pursuit of what once
  seemed to be a silly cosmology. And this is
  not the exception this is the normal case.
  Such unreasonable, nonsensical unmethodical
  foreplay turns out to be an unavoidable
  precondition of clarity and of empirical
  success. (Against Method 18)

7
Pluralistic Methodology

• To maximise the empirical content of her theory
  the scientist must adopt a pluralistic
  methodology tolerant of even conflicting ideas.
• No view can ever be omitted from a comprehensive
  account.

8
The Role of Experience

• A scientist in order to increase the empirical
  content of her theory must compare ideas with
  other ideas rather than with experience.
• The postulation of ideas that are inconsistent
  with well-established facts are just as valuable.

9
Counter-Induction

• Science can progress by Counter-induction.
• Vs. The consistency condition that new
  hypotheses must agree with older accepted
  theories.
• We can use hypotheses that contradict well
  confirmed theories without falsifying the old
  theory.
• No interesting theory is ever consistent with all
  the relevant facts vs. falsificationism.
• We can also use hypotheses that contradict well
  established experimental results (e.g. that are
  contrary to observation). vs. inductivism

10
Knowledge

• Knowledge ? gradual approach to the truth.
• Task of the scientist is not to search for
  truth.
• Knowledge is a an ever increasing ocean of
  mutually incompatible (and perhaps even
  incommensurable) alternatives, each single
  theory, each fairy tale, each myth all
  contributing to the development of our
  consciousness. (Against Method 21)

11
Incommensurability

• Incommensurability Scientific theories cannot
  be compared directly because they are based on
  incompatible assumptions.
• Feyerabend takes this to support his view that
  the use of general standards/methods for
  establishing the quality of scientific theories
  is futile.

12
All Ideas are Relevant to Science

• All ideas are absorbed into science no matter how
  arbitrary/old/false they appear to be.
• The whole history of thought is relevant.
• The alternatives to a given theory can be taken
  from wherever one finds them - from ancient myths
  and modern prejudices or free fantasies!
• Tolerance vs. Scientific chauvinism
• This approach to science is more humanitarian.

13
Example (1) The Moving Earth

• After Aristotle and Ptolemy, the Pytagorean idea
  that the earth moves (which is consistent with a
  heliocentric worldview) was rejected. However,
  this crazy idea was later revived by the
  Copernican Theory.

14
Example (2) Chinese Medicine

• First the herbal concoction is analysed into
  its chemical constituents. Then the specific
  effects are determined and the whole effect on a
  particular organ explained on their basis. This
  neglects the possibility that the herb, taken in
  its entirety, changes the state of the whole
  organism. Here as elsewhere knowledge is obtained
  from a multiplicity of views. (AM 37-38)

15
Demarcation

• No Distinction between Science vs. Pseudoscience.
  
• Pluralism of theories and metaphysical views is
  the only methodology by which science can
  progress.
• It is also the only methodology that is
  consistent with a humanitarian outlook.

16
No Universal Measures

• Neither Science nor rationality are universal
  measures of excellence.
• They too are traditions which individuals commit
  to in their cultural choices.
• Science a Tradition!

17

• What is Science? Many Answers --
• Ans Relative to interests/values
• (2) Whats so great about Science?
• Ans In a lot of cases we do not know!
• (3) How do we use the Sciences and who decides
  the matter?
• Ans Communities use science in a way that
• closely accords with its values and its aims.

18
Science Religion

• Science is no different in its dogma than
  religion.
• Objection but isnt science self-correcting?
• Feyerabend replies - ALL disciplines are
  self-correcting. (e.g. self-correcting of
  religious dogma)

19
Contexts of Discovery Justification

• Justification can be overruled in favour of
  discovery (vs. Popper) and vice versa.
• Inventing theories and contemplating them (e.g.
  the context of discovery) in a relaxed and
  artisitic fashion, scientists often make more
  progress than they would by following
  methodological rules rigidly.
• Both the context of justification and discovery
  are important.
• But they are not to be distinguished. They are in
  constant conflict.

20
Theoretical Entities

• The entities postulated by science are not
  discovered and do not constitute an objective
  measure for all cultures/civilizations.
• (e.g. Time - Indian Cultures vs. Western Culture)

21
Cultural Relativism

• Scientific knowledge is not a special species of
  knowledge and is relative to cultural beackground
  commitments.
• The entities postulated by science are also not
  objective but relative to a cultural framework.
• Is all truth relative?

22
Vs. Scientific Realism

• There is an important means of exploring reality
  and finding natures joints.
• Atoms existed independently before we discovered
  them ( e.g. independent of scintillation
  screens.)
• The Separability Assumption the assumption that
  the entities discovered by science are
  independent of the the theories/ideas of mankind.
• Those entities will continue to exist and obey
  natures laws even if man were not to observe
  them.

23
Advancement of the Atom

• Scientists being embedded in constantly changing
  social surroundings, used ideas and physical
  equipment to manufacture first metaphysical
  atoms, then physical atoms, then complex systems
  of elementary particles out of material lacking
  all these features. Scientists are sculptors of
  reality.
• (Against Method 269 - 270)

24
Feyerabends Account of Science

• (1) Scientific knowledge is not cumulative, does
  not follow a linear trajectory.
• (2) Science may never be unified because theories
  are incommensurable.
• (3) There is no objective demarcation criterion.
  Anything goes!
• (4) We should compare ideas with ideas rather
  than ideas with observations.
• Observation experiment should not be taken too
  seriously.
• (5) No interesting theory is ever consistent with
  all the relevant facts. Evidence for a hypothesis
  is not enough.
• (6) The contexts of Discovery Justification are
  both relevant to the epistemology of science. The
  should be distinguished the are both valid
  alternatives.
• (7) Our understanding of scientific terms is
  always subject to our cultural choices in
  adopting a tradition.
• (8) Science is irrational.