Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Epistemological Anarchism and How Science Works

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism

Part of the book series: Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education ((CTISE,volume 50))

  • 392 Accesses

Abstract

It is well known that most of Feyerabend’s ideas on epistemological anarchism developed as a constant dialogue with Imre Lakatos (cf. Motterlini, 1999). Furthermore, in developing his ideas, Feyerabend was constantly critiquing both Karl Popper and Lakatos. In order to facilitate a better understanding of the debate between Feyerabend and Lakatos, here I present a brief description of the Lakatosian Methodology of Scientific Research Programs (MSRP). (I am grateful to David Geelan for this suggestion). According to Lakatos (1970) the basic unit of appraisal must not be an isolated theory or conjunction of theories but rather a “research program,” with a conventionally accepted “hard core” and with a “positive heuristic” which defines problems, outlines the construction of a “belt of auxiliary hypotheses,” foresees anomalies and turns them victoriously into examples, all according to a preconceived plan. The “negative heuristic” represents the “hard core” of the program, consisting of basic assumptions considered “irrefutable” by the methodological decision of its protagonists, and does not allow modus tollens to de directed at this hard core. The positive heuristic represents the construction of a “protective belt” consisting of a partially articulated set of suggestions or hints on how to change, develop the “refutable variants” of the program. The positive heuristic saves the scientist from becoming confused in the “ocean of anomalies” by directing the modus tollens at the “auxiliary hypotheses”. The scientist lists anomalies, but as long as his research program sustains its momentum, he may freely put them aside, and it is primarily the positive heuristic of the program, and not the anomalies, which dictate the choice of problems.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Barnes, B., Bloor, D., & Henry, J. (1996). Scientific knowledge: A sociological analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. J. (2016). The abundant world: Paul Feyerabend’s metaphysics of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57, 142–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. J., & Kidd, I. J. (2016). Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1988a). Can we be scientific in applied social science? In E. S. Overman (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science (pp. 315–333). Chicago: University of Chicago.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1988b). Qualitative knowing in action research. In E. S. Overman (Ed.), Methodology and epistemology for social science (pp. 360–376). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartwright, N. (1999). The dappled world: A study of the boundaries of science. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Cavazos, L., Hazelwood, C. C., Howes, E. V., Kurth, L., Lane, P., Markham, L., et al. (1998). Response to guest editorial: The WISE group: Connecting activism, teaching, and research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 341–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers, A. F. (1985). Galileo’s telescopic observations of Venus and Mars. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 36, 175–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2002). The third wave of science studies: Studies of expertise and experience. Social Studies of Science, 32(2), 235–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Pinch, T. (1998). The Golem: What you should know about science (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conant, J. B. (1951). Science and common sense. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, L. N. (1970). An introduction to the meaning and structure of physics (short edn). New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cushing, J. T. (1989). The justification and selection of scientific theories. Synthese, 78, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daston, L., & Galison, P. L. (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupré, J. (1993). The disorder of things: Metaphysical foundations for the disunity of science. Harvard, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Earman, J., & Glymour, C. (1980). Relativity and eclipses: The British eclipse expeditions of 1919 and their predecessors. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11(1), 49–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Einstein, A. (1949). Remarks concerning the essays brought together in this cooperative volume (P. Schilpp, Trans.). In P. Schilpp (Ed.), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-scientist (pp. 65–688). La Salle, PA: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, R. P. (2003). Feyerabend and scientific values. Tightrope-Walking rationality. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1962/1981). Explanation, reduction and empiricism. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 3, 28–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1968). Science, freedom, and the good life. Philosophical Forum, 1(2), 127–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1970a). Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. In M. Radner & S. Winokur (Eds.), Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science (Vol. IV, pp. 17–130). Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1970b). Problems of empiricism, Part II. In R. G. Colodny (Ed.), The nature and function of scientific theories (pp. 275–353). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1970c). Consolations for the specialist. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 197–230). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1974/1975b/1988). How to defend society against science. In E. D. Klemke, R. Hollinger, & A. D. Kline (Eds.), Introductory readings in the philosophy of science. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1975a). Against method. Outline of an anarchist theory of knowledge. Londond: New Left Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1975b/1988). How to defend society against science. Radical Philosophy, 11(1), 3-9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1987). Farewell to reason. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1991a). Concluding unphilosophical conversation. In G. Munévar (Ed.), Beyond reason: Essays on the philosophy of Paul Feyerabend (pp. 487–527). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1993). Against method. Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge (3rd Rev and enlarged edn). New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1994). Potentially every culture is all cultures. Common Knowledge, 2(3), 16–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (1999b). Conquest of abundance: A tale of abstraction versus the richness of being. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, P. K. (2011). The tyranny of science. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press (Based on Trent lectures delivered in 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro, M. A. (Trans.: Ed.). (1989). The Galileo affair: A documentary history. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Finocchiaro, M. A. (Trans.: Ed.). (1997). Galileo on the world systems: A new abridged translation and guide. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gattei, S. (2016). Feyerabend, truth and relativisms: Footnotes to the Italian debate. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57, 87–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2006a). Scientific perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2006b). Perspectival pluralism. In S. H. Kellert, H. E. Longino, & C. K. Waters (Eds.), Scientific pluralism (pp. 26–41). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giere, R. N. (2016). Feyerabend’s perspectivism. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57, 137–141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hildebrand, G. M. (1998). Disrupting hegemonic writing practices in school science: Contesting the right way to write. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35(4), 345–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, D. (2009). Teaching and learning about science: Language, theories, methods, history, traditions and values. Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, R. (2012). In J. Kovac & M. Weisberg (Eds.), Roald Hoffmann on the philosophy, art, and science of chemistry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmann, R. (2016). Email sent to author, 23 February, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1978a). Subelectrons, presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft dispute. Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 9, 161–224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1978b). On the educational philosophy of the Project Physics Course. In G. Holton (Ed.), The scientific imagination (pp. 294–298). New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holton, G. (1986). The advancement of science and its burdens. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalman, C. S. (2019a). Personal communication to author, February 18, reproduced with permission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, I. J. (2016). Was Feyerabend a postmodernist? International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 30(1), 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P. (2011). Science in a democratic society. New York: Prometheus.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–195). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1971a). History of science and its rational reconstructions. In R. Buck & R. Cohen (Eds.), P.S.A. 1970, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 8, pp. 102–138). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. (1971b). Replies to critics. In R. Buck & R. Cohen (Eds.), P.S.A. 1970, Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 8, pp. 174–182). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Longino, H. E. (1990). Science as social knowledge: Values and objectivity in scientific inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Machamer, P. K. (1973). Feyerabend and Galileo: The interaction of theories, and the reinterpretation of experience. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 4(1), 1–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motterlini, M. (1999). Ed. For and against method: Including Lakatos’s lectures on scientific method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Motterlini, M. (2002b). Reconstructing Lakatos: A reassessment of Lakatos’s epistemological project in the light of the Lakatos archive. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33A(3), 487–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Motterlini, M. (2016). Paul Karl Feyerabend. In J. Pfeifer & S. Sarkar (Eds.), The philosophy of science: An encyclopedia (pp. 1–22). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munévar, G. (2016). Historical antecedents to the philosophy of Paul Feyerabend. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57, 9–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, A. (1976a). Method or madness? Can the methodology of research programmes be rescued from epistemological anarchism? In R. S. Cohen, P. K. Feyerabend & M. W. Wartofsky (Eds.), Essays in memory of Imre Lakatos (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol 39, pp. 457–491). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Musgrave, A. (1976b). Why did oxygen supplant phlogiston? Research programmes in the chemical revolution. In C. Howson (Ed.), Method and appraisal in the physical sciences: The critical background to modern science, 1800–1905 (pp. 181–209). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2009). Critical appraisal of physical science as a human enterprise: Dynamics of scientific progress. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niaz, M. (2018). Evolving nature of objectivity in the history of science and its implications for science education. Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oberheim, E. (2016). Rediscovering Einstein’s legacy: How Einstein anticipates Kuhn and Feyerabend on the nature of science. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57, 17–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perl, M. L. (2004). The discovery of the Tau Lepton and the changes in elementary-particle physics in forty years. Physics in Perspective, 6, 401–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popper K. R. (1963b). The open society and its enemies (4th ed., first published 1945). New York: Harper Torchbooks.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sankey, H. (2012). Philosophical fairytales from Feyerabend. Metascience, 21(2), 471–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Segre, M. (1997). Light on the Galileo case? Isis, 88, 484–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. (2019). The revolt against rationalism: Feyerabend’s critical philosophy. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (in press).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorgner, H. (2016). Challenging expertise: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins and Robert Evans on democracy, public participation and scientific authority. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57, 114–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomason, N. (1994). The power of ARCHED hypotheses: Feyerabend’s Galileo as a closet rationalist. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45(1), 255–264.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, D. (1983). Rutherford: Simple genius. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wynne, B. (1989). Sheep farming after chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 31(2), 10–39.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Chemistry, Universidad de Oriente, Cumaná, Sucre, Venezuela

    Mansoor Niaz

Authors
  1. Mansoor Niaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Niaz, M. (2020). Epistemological Anarchism and How Science Works. In: Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism. Contemporary Trends and Issues in Science Education, vol 50. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36859-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-36859-3_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-36858-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-36859-3

  • eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation