Thread: Against Method

Has anyone here read Feyerabend's Against Method?

I'm a few chapters in and I'm really liking the notion that anarchism is what advances knowledge, not mere method.

Originally Posted by Mr Mirth

Has anyone here read Feyerabend's Against Method?

I'm a few chapters in and I'm really liking the notion that anarchism is what advances knowledge, not mere method.

Is that because you're an anarchist... or would you care to expound on what part of Feyerabend's theoritical anarchism intrigues you the most?

Well, I'd really like to know if any of you have read the work, and what your take may be.

I personally employ the anarchistic method of research. I'm always learning something. Unfortunately, that means I'll probably never read his book...

So you think, grapes, that "anything goes" when you're doing research?[/quote]

Heinlein believed that pure research would always pay dividends, eventually.

Originally Posted by Mr Mirth

So you think, grapes, that "anything goes" when you're doing research?

If you have the time and resources, sure. If you're trying to get me to pay for your time and resources, no not so much.

Would you agree "The consistency condition which demands that new hypotheses agree with accepted theories is unreasonable because it preserves the older theory, and not the better theory. Hypotheses contradicting well-confirmed theories give us evidence that cannot be obtained in any other way. Proliferation of theories is beneficial for science, while uniformity impairs its critical power. Uniformity also endangers the free development of the individual."?

That's an interesting quote. I can't imagine the context.

What "consistency condition"? Clearly, Einstein's theory of relativity did not agree with accepted theories. And no one insisted that he should (eta: as a matter of principle). Who is trying to apply this consistency condition? Sounds like a strawman to me.

Originally Posted by grapes

If you have the time and resources, sure. If you're trying to get me to pay for your time and resources, no not so much.

Ha!
touche'

That's an interesting quote. I can't imagine the context.

What "consistency condition"? Clearly, Einstein's theory of relativity did not agree with accepted theories. And no one insisted that he should (eta: as a matter of principle). Who is trying to apply this consistency condition? Sounds like a strawman to me.

Well, admittedly I took that quote from this page which outlines the main arguments and gives part of the final chapter. I'll get back to the book (I shifted gears and started reading Comets and the Origin and Evolution of Life) and try to find some context for you.

Originally Posted by Mr Mirth

Well, admittedly I took that quote from this page which outlines the main arguments and gives part of the final chapter. I'll get back to the book (I shifted gears and started reading Comets and the Origin and Evolution of Life) and try to find some context for you.

That page says the quote comes from the book's Analytical Index (or, Analytical Table of Contents, I'm not sure which). Your quote is the entire fourth bullet point, right? The third bullet point says:

For example, we may use hypotheses that contradict well-confirmed theories and/or well-established experimental results. We may advance science by proceeding counter-inductively.

That's an example of "anything goes". But it still doesn't seem very anarchistic. I mean, experiments get repeated--and it's good they do, because mistakes have been made. There is a famous example of the mass of the electron, that Feynman makes a big deal of, where the original measurement of the mass of the electron gradually changed, because of the influence of the first measurement. I mean, it changed gradually because no one wanted to discount the first (wrong) measurement.