Against Method
Tags: #philosophy #science #philosophy of science #history of science #epistemology #knowledge #rationality #anarchism
Authors: Paul Feyerabend
 (Z-Library)_thumbnail.jpg)
Overview
My book, Against Method, challenges the idea that there is a single, universal method for scientific progress. I argue that the history of science is full of examples of scientists succeeding by breaking established methodological rules. In fact, I contend that a rigid adherence to any methodology, even seemingly rational ones, can hinder the advancement of knowledge.
I propose an ‘anarchistic’ approach to science, which emphasizes flexibility, opportunism, and a willingness to consider even seemingly absurd ideas. I believe this approach is more humane than traditional methodologies, which can stifle creativity and limit individual freedom.
The book explores various philosophical ideas related to science, including the ‘consistency condition,’ the role of ‘natural interpretations’ in shaping observations, and the concept of ‘incommensurability.’ It also examines historical examples, such as Galileo’s defense of Copernicanism and the Church’s response, to illustrate the complex interplay between science, society, and ideology.
The target audience for this book is anyone interested in the philosophy of science, the history of science, or the relationship between science and society. It is particularly relevant for those who are concerned about the increasing dominance of science and technology in modern society.
Book Outline
1. Against Method: An Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
There is no single method for scientific progress. Blindly following any methodology, even seemingly fundamental or rational ones, can be detrimental to the advancement of knowledge. This is because the world is largely unknown, and rigidly restricting ourselves beforehand limits our ability to discover its secrets. Scientific education, by enforcing narrow methodological rules, can stifle the cultivation of individuality and hinder the development of well-rounded individuals.
Key concept: Anything goes.
2. The Value of Counterinduction
We may advance science by proceeding counterinductively, meaning we can utilize hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories or established facts. New hypotheses that clash with existing knowledge can reveal the hidden assumptions and limitations of our current understanding, leading to new discoveries and a more refined understanding of the world.
Key concept: Counterinduction.
3. Critique of the Consistency Condition
The ‘consistency condition,’ requiring new hypotheses to agree with accepted theories, is unreasonable. It prioritizes older theories solely due to their age and familiarity, hindering the exploration of potentially better, albeit contradictory, alternatives. This stifles the critical power of science and can lead to the preservation of outdated ideas solely due to their established status.
Key concept: The consistency condition.
4. The Importance of Intellectual Pluralism
The history of thought is filled with valuable ideas that have been prematurely dismissed. To truly advance knowledge, we should be open to considering and elaborating upon even seemingly absurd or ancient ideas, as they may contain hidden insights or provide valuable perspectives that can enhance our understanding. This means being open to the unexpected and embracing a pluralistic approach to knowledge, drawing from diverse sources such as myths, religions, and even the ideas of so-called cranks.
Key concept: No idea is ever examined in all its ramifications and no view is ever given all the chances it deserves.
5. The Interplay of Theories and Facts
Theories rarely align perfectly with all known facts. This is not always a sign of a flawed theory. Facts themselves are not objective and immutable; they are shaped by existing ideologies and theoretical frameworks. Discrepancies between theories and facts can signal an opportunity for progress. Instead of dismissing theories that clash with established “facts,” we should use them to uncover and scrutinize the hidden assumptions and limitations inherent in those very facts.
Key concept: Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of progress.
6. Unveiling Natural Interpretations
Observations are not neutral reflections of reality; they are shaped by “natural interpretations,” which are implicit assumptions and ingrained patterns of thought so closely tied to our perceptions that we rarely recognize them as separate entities. To understand how these interpretations influence our observations and limit our understanding, we must consciously identify and scrutinize them. By replacing these interpretations with new ones, we can open ourselves to new ways of seeing the world and accommodate novel theories.
Key concept: Natural interpretations.
7. The Art of Persuasion and Anamnesis
Introducing new and counterintuitive ideas requires not just logical argumentation, but also the use of rhetorical techniques and “psychological tricks.” This involves presenting seemingly radical ideas as if they were already known and accepted, subtly shifting the audience’s perspective without explicitly acknowledging the change that has occurred. The example of Galileo’s defense of Copernicanism, which involved the strategic use of thought experiments and appeals to “common sense,” illustrates the effectiveness of this approach.
Key concept: Anamnesis.
8. The Telescope and the Transformation of Experience
Even new observational tools and technologies are not initially accepted as reliable sources of knowledge. Their acceptance often depends on their perceived usefulness and their alignment with existing theoretical frameworks. The telescope, for example, was initially met with skepticism and its observations were questioned due to inconsistencies and contradictions with established knowledge. It gained acceptance only after its terrestrial usefulness was demonstrated and its celestial observations were found to be in harmony with Copernican theory, despite the absence of a clear theoretical understanding of how the telescope itself worked.
Key concept: The telescope: A “superior and better sense.”
9. Kepler’s Theory of Vision
The reliability of new observational tools cannot be established simply through observation itself. It requires the development of new theories that explain how the tool interacts with the world and with our senses. In the case of the telescope, Kepler’s theory of vision, which explained how the eye and the telescope worked together to produce images, played a crucial role in establishing the telescope’s reliability as an astronomical instrument.
Key concept: Kepler’s theory of vision.
10. The Interplay of Refuted Ideas
The acceptance of new theories often involves a complex interplay between seemingly refuted ideas. Novel ideas, initially lacking sufficient evidence or facing contradictory observations, can gain support by aligning with other, equally inadequate, theories. This mutual support creates a web of interconnected ideas that can sustain a new worldview until sufficient evidence or theoretical advancements solidify its foundation. The relationship between the telescope’s observations, Kepler’s theory of vision, and Copernican theory is an example of this phenomenon.
Key concept: Harmony between refuted ideas.
11. The Uneven Development of Science
The “uneven development” of science is the idea that different parts of science progress at different paces and are influenced by various factors, including social, political, and philosophical trends. This unevenness makes it difficult to apply rigid methodological rules or standards across all scientific disciplines, and it requires a more nuanced and context-sensitive approach to understanding scientific progress.
Key concept: Uneven development of science.
12. The Galilean Method and its Applications
The ‘Galilean method,’ involving the strategic use of thought experiments, the introduction of new concepts and natural interpretations, and the modification of sensory experiences through new technologies, can be applied to various fields beyond astronomy and physics. For instance, it can be applied to address philosophical problems such as the mind-body problem, challenging existing arguments and proposing new frameworks. However, this approach should not be universally applied, and the ethical and social consequences of such applications should be carefully considered.
Key concept: Galilean method.
13. The Church at the Time of Galileo
The Church’s condemnation of Galileo was rational within the context of the time. It prioritized the preservation of a well-rounded, sanctified life as guided by scripture. They sought scientific proof before accepting new ideas that contradicted their understanding of a ‘Good Life’. This highlights the importance of considering ethical and social implications alongside scientific advancements.
Key concept: The Church at the Time of Galileo
14. The Complexity of Scientific Revolutions
The so-called ‘Copernican Revolution’ was not a singular event driven by a single scientist or a single principle. Rather, it involved a complex interplay of contributions from various individuals, schools of thought, and research traditions, each with its own motivations, methods, and limitations. This highlights the need to consider the broader historical context and the contributions of various actors when analyzing scientific revolutions.
Key concept: Copernican Revolution
15. Dissolving the Distinction Between Discovery and Justification
The distinction between the “context of discovery” and the “context of justification,” which separates the generation of ideas from their evaluation, is artificial and does not reflect scientific practice. Attempts to enforce this distinction would have disastrous consequences for scientific progress, as the process of discovery often involves elements considered irrational from the perspective of justification.
Key concept: Context of Discovery and Context of Justification
16. Incommensurability: Beyond Simple Comparisons
Simple methodological comparisons often break down when examining complex theories or worldviews. ‘Incommensurability’ arises when different systems of thought operate based on fundamentally different assumptions and categories, making direct comparison or evaluation impossible without significant conceptual shifts. This highlights the limitations of traditional methodologies and the need for a more nuanced approach to understanding the relationship between different frameworks.
Key concept: Incommensurability
17. Science, Rationality, and Freedom
Neither science nor rationality are universal measures of excellence. They are products of specific historical contexts and should not be imposed upon individuals or societies. A free society allows for a plurality of traditions and perspectives, recognizing the value and potential of each. This implies a separation of science and state, similar to the separation of church and state, to protect societies from the dominance of any single worldview.
Key concept: A free society is a society in which all traditions are given equal rights, equal access to education and other positions of power.
18. Evaluating Standards of Rationality
Scientific standards are not above tradition or beyond change. They can be evaluated and improved, but the principles for doing so are not absolute and independent of context. ‘Idealism’ posits that rational standards should guide practice, while ‘naturalism’ argues that standards emerge from practice. ‘Naive anarchism’ rejects all standards as worthless. A more nuanced approach acknowledges the limitations of all three positions and suggests that reason and practice are part of a single, evolving process.
Key concept: Idealism vs. naturalism vs. naive anarchism.
19. Science and Democracy
Science, while offering valuable insights and tools, is not the ultimate arbiter of truth or the only valid form of knowledge. It should not be granted special privileges or authority over other traditions and perspectives. In a democratic society, science should be separated from the state, just as religion is separated from the state, to prevent the imposition of any single worldview and to ensure a plurality of perspectives.
Key concept: Separation of science and state.
20. The Genesis of My Ideas
My views on knowledge, science, and society have not emerged from a carefully planned philosophical system but from ‘accidental encounters’ and experiences that prompted me to question established norms and assumptions. These encounters sparked a critical reflection on the role of science, the limitations of rationalism, and the importance of embracing diverse perspectives and traditions for a more humane and intellectually enriched society.
Key concept: Accidental Encounters
Essential Questions
1. What is science, and how do scientists really proceed?
Feyerabend argues that there isn’t one single, universally applicable scientific method. Scientists employ a wide range of approaches, from strict adherence to empirical data to developing highly speculative theories. Success in science arises from diverse and often conflicting trends, not from rigid adherence to any particular methodology. The key takeaway is that scientific progress is a complex and messy process, driven by individual creativity, historical context, and even ‘accidents.’
2. What makes science ‘better’ than other forms of knowledge?
While acknowledging that science has produced remarkable achievements, Feyerabend challenges the assumption that it is inherently superior to other forms of knowledge. He argues that the perceived superiority of science often stems from its association with technological progress and the dominance of Western culture. He suggests that other traditions, such as indigenous knowledge systems or the arts, can offer valuable insights and contribute to a more humane and fulfilling life.
3. How should science be used, and who should decide?
Feyerabend argues for a separation of science and state, similar to the separation of church and state. He contends that science is just one of many instruments humans have developed to understand and interact with the world, and it should not be granted special privileges or authority over other traditions. In a democratic society, decisions regarding the use and application of science should involve the broader public, not just scientific experts.
Key Takeaways
1. Challenge the Consistency Condition
The ‘consistency condition’ hinders scientific progress by prioritizing older, established theories solely based on their age and familiarity. It discourages the exploration of potentially better, contradictory alternatives, stifling scientific innovation and critical thinking. In science, and in other fields, we should be willing to consider and develop ideas that challenge the status quo, even if they initially seem unreasonable or counterintuitive.
Practical Application:
In AI product design, avoiding the ‘consistency condition’ means being open to exploring radically new architectures and algorithms, even if they challenge established AI paradigms. Instead of simply trying to improve existing models, consider approaches that contradict conventional wisdom. For instance, explore alternative learning paradigms beyond supervised learning, or develop new evaluation metrics that capture aspects of intelligence beyond current benchmarks.
2. Consider Ethical and Social Implications
The pursuit of knowledge, including scientific knowledge, should not be divorced from ethical and social considerations. Scientific progress should not be pursued at the expense of human well-being or individual freedom. It’s important to consider the broader impact of scientific advancements and to ensure that they contribute to a more humane and just society.
Practical Application:
When designing an AI product, don’t just rely on quantitative data and metrics. Consider the social and ethical implications of the product. Consult with diverse stakeholders, including ethicists, social scientists, and members of the communities who will be affected by the AI. Integrate their perspectives and values into the design process to create more humane and responsible AI systems.
3. Embrace a Pluralistic Approach
Progress often requires a ‘step back’ from established knowledge and a willingness to question fundamental assumptions. This means being open to considering diverse perspectives, even those that seem absurd or contradictory to current understanding. This ‘backward movement’ can provide the freedom and space needed to develop truly novel and groundbreaking ideas.
Practical Application:
When working on a challenging AI problem, don’t be afraid to ‘take a step back’ from the immediate technical challenges and reconsider fundamental assumptions. For instance, if current deep learning models struggle with certain aspects of natural language understanding, explore alternative approaches inspired by cognitive science or linguistics. Embrace a pluralistic approach, drawing from diverse intellectual traditions to generate new ideas.
Suggested Deep Dive
Chapter: Chapter 13: The Church at the Time of Galileo
This chapter provides a nuanced perspective on the Galileo affair, challenging the common narrative that paints the Church as anti-science. This is particularly relevant for AI professionals who often grapple with the ethical and societal implications of their work and the need to navigate the complex relationship between science and societal values.
Memorable Quotes
Chapter 1. 26
The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes.
Chapter 2. 33
Theories become clear and “reasonable” only after incoherent parts of them have been used for a long time. Such unreasonable, nonsensical, unmethodical foreplay thus turns out to be an unavoidable precondition of clarity and of empirical success.
Chapter 4. 45
There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge.
Chapter 11. 130
Knowledge so conceived is not a series of self-consistent theories that converges towards an ideal view; it is not a gradual approach to the truth. It is rather an ever increasing ocean of mutually incompatible alternatives, each single theory, each fairy-tale, each myth that is part of the collection forcing the others into greater articulation and all of them contributing, via this process of competition, to the development of our consciousness.
Chapter 17. 241
A free society is a society in which all traditions are given equal rights, equal access to education and other positions of power.
Comparative Analysis
Feyerabend’s Against Method stands in stark contrast to more traditional philosophies of science, such as logical positivism and Karl Popper’s falsificationism. While these philosophies emphasize logic, rigor, and adherence to strict methodological rules, Feyerabend argues that such an approach is unrealistic and ultimately harmful to scientific progress. His perspective resonates with the historical analyses of Thomas Kuhn, who highlighted the role of paradigms and scientific revolutions, and with Paul Feyerabend’s emphasis on the importance of scientific creativity and the role of ‘accidental encounters’ in shaping scientific breakthroughs. However, Feyerabend goes further than Kuhn in advocating for a complete separation of science and state, arguing that no single tradition, including science, should be granted special authority or privilege in a free society. This radical stance sets him apart even from those who share his criticisms of traditional scientific methodologies.
Reflection
Feyerabend’s Against Method is a provocative and challenging work that forces us to reconsider our understanding of science, knowledge, and the role of reason in society. His ‘anarchistic’ approach, while insightful, can be seen as overly radical. His complete dismissal of methodological rules and his embrace of ‘anything goes’ may seem impractical and potentially dangerous in real-world contexts.
Moreover, Feyerabend’s views on the separation of science and state, while raising important questions about the authority of science and the role of experts in democratic societies, can be seen as overly idealistic. In the real world, complete separation is difficult to achieve, and the complexities of navigating the relationship between science, politics, and public policy require a more nuanced and pragmatic approach.
However, despite its radicalism, Against Method remains a highly valuable contribution to the philosophy of science. It challenges us to critically examine the assumptions underlying our understanding of scientific knowledge and encourages us to embrace a more open and pluralistic approach to knowledge acquisition and societal progress.
Flashcards
What is counterinduction?
Developing hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories or established facts.
Why is the ‘consistency condition’ unreasonable?
It prioritizes older theories over newer ones solely due to their age and familiarity.
What are ‘natural interpretations’?
Hidden assumptions and ingrained patterns of thought that shape our observations.
What is ‘anamnesis’?
The art of introducing new ideas by presenting them as if they were already known and accepted.
What is the ‘uneven development of science’?
The idea that different parts of science progress at different paces, influenced by various social, political, and philosophical factors.
What is ‘incommensurability’?
A state of affairs where two systems of thought are based on fundamentally different assumptions and categories, making direct comparison difficult or impossible.