-
Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994)
Feyerabend is known as one of the most thought-provoking philosophers. He was born on January 13, 1924. He studied science at the University of Vienna, he later changed his course to the philosophy of science for his doctoral thesis. He is well known for his criticism of Karl Popper’s theory of critical rationalism. Preston (2020), describes Feyerabend as “An imaginative maverick, he became a critic of philosophy of science itself.”
Link text -
1962 Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism
In 1962 Feyerabend criticized the existing explanations of empiricists. He introduced the concept of incommensurability. He exposed semantic instability. He claims that semantic stability that is accepted by positivist accounts of reduction, explanation and confirmation should be stripped away so that science can progress. He explains that “a formal account of reduction and explanation is impossible for general theories, or noninstantial theories.” (Feyerabend,1962) -
1965 Problems of Empiricism and Reply to Criticism
Feyerabend publishes “Problems of Empiricism” and “Reply to Criticism.” In these papers he made his last attempt to construct empiricism that is “tolerant” and “disinfected.” (Preston, 2020). He argues a comprehensive and opportunistic pluralism. Preston (2020) points out that “his most important argument for scientific realism was methodological: realism is desirable because it demands the proliferation of new and incompatible theories.” -
1975 Against Method
Feyerabend published his book Against Method. The main idea expressed is that the scientific method is not a thing. Godfrey-Smith (2003) describes his theory as “great scientists are opportunistic and creative, willing to make use of any available technique for discovery and persuasion. Any attempt to establish rules of method in science will result only in a straitjacketing of this creativity.” -
1978 Science in a Free Society
In this publication, Feyerabend responds to criticisms about his previous book Against Method. He gives illumination to the epistemological mayhem but does not deter from his views. “Because there is no scientific method, we can’t justify science as the best way of acquiring knowledge. And the results of science don’t prove its excellence, since these results have often depended on the presence of non-scientific elements” (Preston, 2020).