What is this thing called science? Ch. 10

(Originally written November 14, 2006 in Book 8)

What is this thing called science?
Alan Chalmers

Ch. 10: Feyerabend's anarchistic theory of science

[story so far]

It has been a struggle to distinguish scientific knowledge from any other type of knowledge.

[Feyerabend's case against method]

Feyerabend argued that science posses no features that render it superior to any other knowledge pursuit.

Feyerabend sought to undermine philosophers' attempts to characterize method and progress in science.

Feyerabend insists that scientific theories that are unaccepted or unacceptable in a certain time make use of propaganda to gain acceptance.

Feyerabend teased Lakatos for being so lax in his standards he cannot rule anything out as a non-science.

Feyerabend rejected Kuhn's claim of social consensus of the scientific community because he felt the appeal to consensus of a community was incapable of distinguishing science from other activities.

Feyerabend claimed he had proved there is no way of establishing science as special. Thus, we ought not to claim its superiority.

Feyerabend saw a high regard of science as a dangerous dogma. Dogmatic science plays a repressive role like the Church played for centuries.

[Feyerabend's advocacy of freedom]

Feyerabend's theory of science is formulated in an ethical system that emphasizes individual freedom.

Feyerabend saw individual freedom as the means to creating the best human beings. By removing the methodological constraints placed on scientists, individuals will be free to choose between science and other forms of knowledge.

The institutionalization of science was something that Feyerabend fought against.

He stated that we need to "free society from the strangling hold of an ideologically petrified science just as our ancestors free us from the strangling hold of the One True Religion" (Chalmers, 156).

Feyeabend advocated for an ideologically neutral state.

Feyerabend claims that philosophies of science are based on aesthetic judgments, judgments of tastes, metaphysical prejudices, religious desire and other subjective feelings.

"There is no scientific method, then scientists should follower their subjective wishes. Anything goes" (Chalmers, 157).

[Critique of Feyerabend's individualism]

A central problem with Feyerabend's account of freedom is that it is entirely a negative account. Freedom is simply more than a freedom from constraints.

Scientists are free only to the extent that they are free to choose from various available techniques in their given field.

Another major problem with Feyerabend is his notion of an ideologically-neutral state. It is childishly naive.