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):||1 August 2010|
|PDF File Size:||4.90 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.81 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge by Paul Karl Feyerabend
Plato’s lists of subjects in Chapter vii of his Republicthese are the ways that are still being used today. To summarize his poin This took forever to read, not because the contents were boring, but because most of it went way over my head. Feyerabend’s notoriety originates squarely in his controversial thoughts on science, which earned him the dubious title of “science’s worst enemy”. Feyerabend became famous for his purportedly anarchistic view of science and his rejection of the existence of universal methodological rules.
I think that the present book is only recommended after a thorough reading of the latter classics, not before. We’ll be free of the corrupting influence and ideology of Science! 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 cnotra 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 feyefabend interacts with the current society is pau, fucked.
Feyerabend doesn’t explicitly make these claims–except, I think, saying that we should teach “magic” in public schools–but they are natural consequences of his view, nonetheless. Feyerabend believes that in order for science to feuerabend further, it is often necessary to leave the old system and start completely cnotra, even if we don’t possess the necessary evidence to confirm the validity of our new approach.
Feyerabend attacks falsification theories quite adamantly, and it should be known that falsifying a theory is no easy task. Either you are rational or you’re an idiot. This is the philosophy of the court jester, not the consigliere, and I suspect Feyerabend would embrace that metaphor.
I’ve been screaming this for years, despite not being a religious person. Definitely a worth read. Feyerabend ritiene che l’euristica di Lakatos sia un anarchismo camuffato, tuttavia dubito che quest’ultimo, influenzato com’era dalla dialettica hegeliana, potesse davvero elaborare una simile teoria.
There are usually incommensurable facts that must be taken into account, and this challenges the basis of the theory itself. Any attempt to censor an idea, however unpopular it is, will result in metood human progress.
File:Feyerabend Paul Tratado contra el – Monoskop
In Galileo’s case, he had to remake physics and biology so that they can replace a very complete Aristotelian worldview. After all, aren’t we better now? Science as an institution then might be necessarily biased against it. They could as easily have been picked up from the props department at Universal Studios, you know. This can work only in lower level statements that have a common framework to be compared in.
Tratado Contra El Metodo
But if it were only the extensive range of sources, I wouldn’t feel so worried. A great book dealing with the mefodo in which science loses something by rigidly adhering to antiquated methodologies and theories.
It does this in a civil and well-argued manner without the usual mehodo me the evidence!!! But in an era where workers’ rights have been massively eviscerated, scientific research grotesquely corporatized, and in which a radically anti-rational American right has used its influence to prevent environmental justice and declare unilateral war in the Middle East, the argument that science fails to serve society just doesn’t stand.
At the same time, as with pqul anti-foundationalists, so with Feyerabend I am not quite sure whether to take him completely seriously. Given the thesis, it would have made more sense to focus on half a dozen discoveries from the c20th.
He illustrates this stance on the dust jacket of one of his books, Against Methodby publishing his horoscope in the place usually reserved for a biographical sketch of the author.
Feyerabend quotes extensively from a multitude of authors that I know poorly or not at all, including philosophers of science Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, Carnap, Duhemother philosophers Protagoras, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, Heidegger, Marx, Leninscientists, most of whom he claims to have read in the original Galileo, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Einstein, Bohr and classical literature Homer, also in the original.
I’m not entirely persuaded by his argument, at least certain facets of it, but I do largely agree with his position against any universal methodology of science. It’s the dogmatic presentation of science as the only truth and the labeling of everything outside of it as stupid.
Maybe he decided after the reception of the book. Oct 09, Matt ;aul it really liked it Shelves: How then, are we to harness this understanding of the non linear nature of progress to any purpose?
My only beef is that he assumes that ideas are politically neutral, or that all ideas are equally non-neutral, which I think ignores their motivations. Or how paull having the FDA start endorsing homeopathy, voodoo, and witchcraft for dealing with medicinal concerns?
Interestingly, Feyerabend says, only a few pages later, that, “Lakatos does not really differ from the traditional epistemologists. In some ways, Feyerabend does well to criticize past methods in order to meyodo inconsistencies in how they are aestheticized and presented. The way in which scientists work is of course not monolithic, nor has it remained changeless over the last four centuries.