Paul Feyerabend’s Philosophy of Science

Feyerabend’s Main Theses

  • There is no universally valid scientific method. Furthermore, to impose some method on science would hamper scientific progress.
  • Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise. The only principle that does not inhibit progress is “Anything goes.”
  • The history of science shows that scientists do not follow any particular method or methods. Scientific advancements have often occurred as a result of scientists’ violating the accepted rules.
  • Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science.
  • “There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge. . . .”
  • The history of science shows that there is no universal rationality and that irrationality should not be dismissed.
  • Science is not sacrosanct, and the debate between science and myth has not been won by either side.

Feyerabend on Science vs. Myth

“. . . Science is much closer to myth than a scientific philosophy is prepared to admit. It is one of the many forms of thought that have been developed by man, and not necessarily the best. It is conspicuous, noisy, and impudent, but it is inherently superior only for those who have already decided in favour of a certain ideology, or who have accepted it without having ever examined its advantages and its limits. . . .” (Against Method, p. 295)

Feyerabend on Galileo’s Defense of Copernican Astronomy

  • The Tower argument involved“natural interpretations—ideas so closely connected with observations that it needs a special effort to realise their existence and to determine their content.”—e.g., that ordinary objects (trees, buildings, etc.) are stationary.
  • Galileo’s refutation of the Tower argument involved identifying the “natural interpretations”that were inconsistent with Copernicus and replacing them by others.
  • Galileo’s new “natural interpretations”were introduced and concealed in such ways people did not notice that the change that has taken place—e.g., the idea of the relativity of all motion and the law of circular inertia.
  • Initial difficulties caused by the change were dealt with by ad hoc hypotheses—e.g., that the rotation of the earth is a natural motion that does not require an external impetus.
  • Galileo also challengedobservationsthat seemed to contradict Copernican astronomy by claiming that telescopic observations were superior. However, he gave no theoretical reasons why the telescope was more accurate.
  • Furthermore, the early telescopic observations were“indistinct, indeterminate, contradictory and in conflict with what everyone can see with his unaided eyes.”
  • On the other hand, Galileo promoted telescopic observations that supported Copernican astronomy.
  • Galileo won his debates against the critics of Copernican astronomy “because of his style and his clever techniques of persuasion, because he writes in Italian rather than in Latin, and because he appeals to people who are temperamentally opposed to the old ideas and the standards of learning connected with them.”
  • “Such 'irrational' methods of support are needed because of the ‘uneven development’. . . of different parts of science. Copernicanism and other essential ingredients of modern science survived only because reason was frequently overruled in their past. . . .”
  • “No theory ever agrees with all the facts in its domain, yet it is not always the theory that is to blame. Facts are constituted by older ideologies, and a clash between facts and theories may be proof of progress. . . .”

Chalmers’s Criticism of Feyerabend’s Views on Galileo

  • Galileo provided good reasons to trust telescopic observations over observations made with the unaided human eye.
  • Galileo proposed the “irradiation” hypothesis—the hypothesis that the apparent size of small, bright, distant light sources against dark backgrounds is distorted.
  • Galileo supported the “irradiation” hypothesis in several ways: (1) reducing the brightness of stars and planets by viewing them through clouds, black veils, colored glass,etc., (2) showing that a lighted torch viewed at a distance at night appears larger than its true size, (3) showing that when Venus is viewed at twilight it appears smaller than when viewed at night and, furthermore, that its apparent size varies throughout the year.
  • Galileo showed that telescopic observations of planets removed irradiation.
  • Since Galileo provided good reasons for trusting telescopic observations of stars and planets, his scientific methods were rational and did not rely on “his style and his clever techniques of persuasion.”
  • Therefore, the history of Galileo’s role in the Copernican revolution does not support Feyerabend’s contention that there is no scientific method and that in science “anything goes.”