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):||21 November 2015|
|PDF File Size:||13.46 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||11.26 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Metoxo to Read saving…. Want to Read Currently Reading Read. Refresh and try again. Open Preview See a Problem? Thanks for telling us about the problem. Return to Book Page. Modern philosophy of science has paid great attention to the understanding of scientific ‘practice’, in contrast to concentration on scientific ‘method’. Paul Feyerabend’s acclaimed work, which has contributed greatly to fejerabend new emphasis, shows the deficiencies of some widespread ideas about the nature of knowledge.
File:Feyerabend Paul Tratado contra el – Monoskop
He argues that the only feasible explanations of scienti Modern philosophy of science has paid great attention to the understanding of scientific ‘practice’, in contrast to concentration on scientific ‘method’. He argues feyearbend the only feasible explanations of scientific successes are historical explanations, and that anarchism must now replace rationalism in the theory of knowledge.
The third edition of this classic text contains a new preface and additional reflections at various points in which the author takes account both of recent debates on science and on the impact of scientific products and practices on feyerrabend human community.
While disavowing populism or relativism, Feyerabend continues to insist that the voice of the inexpert must be heard. Thus many environmental perils were first identified by non-experts against prevailing assumptions in the scientific community. Feyerabend’s challenging reassessment of scientific claims and understandings are as pungent and timely as ever. Paperbackpages. Published November 17th by Verso first published To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.
To ask other readers questions about Against Methodplease sign up. Lists with This Book. Dec 15, Manny rated it really liked it Shelves: This is a challenging book to review. The obvious problems are bad enough: Feyerabend quotes extensively from a multitude of authors that I know eo 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 Feyerabenv, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Einstein, Bohr and classical literature Homer, also in the original.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
Pqul goodness that I had at least read Wittgenstein thoroughly, so I didn’t feel like a complete ignoramus. But if it were only the extensive range of sources, I wouldn’t feel so worried.
The worst part is that Feyerabend is obviously feyerbend you a lot of the time: He wants you to read him critically, not just slavishly agree with him when he shows you the stone tablets he brought down from Mount Sinai. They could as easily have been picked up from the props department at Universal Studios, you know.
O wise Zen Master, please don’t hit me again. I am doing my best dontra get with your book. And stop calling me Grasshopper! The rest of this review is available elsewhere the location cannot be given for Goodreads policy reasons View all 18 comments.
Against Method is a unsystematic book which doesn’t always posit an argument so much as ask a lot of questions. Feyerabend lists his main points in Ch. Feyerabend’s main assertion is that science and the ‘scientific method’ are not inherently objective, and that their results and methods are largely dependent upon social contexts. Science is ‘pluralistic’ in that it relies in mult Against Method is a unsystematic book which doesn’t always posit an argument so much as ask a lot of questions.
Science is ‘pluralistic’ in that it relies in multiple methods of analysis and conceptualizing problems. Most of the book is one extended case study of how Galileo’s heliocentric model of the solar system replaced the idea of the earth at the center.
Feyerabend says that this would not have been possible had Galileo stuck with the old method, and that Galileo had to use evidence that the old theories would not even have considered. Science is a human venture for Feyerabend, and should not be limited by narrower definitions. This is apparently why he cites the Homeric epics and Salvador Dali.
The one phrase which most summarizes his thought is “Anything goes. The whole thing could be used to back up the flimsy claims of quacks.
To take one example from the book, Feyerabend’s exaggerated praise for Traditional Chinese medicine is sloppy. Comtra if we consider feyerabenv the grouping of ‘traditional Chinese medicine’ is itself an artificial construction promoted on political grounds in the Maoist era.
The analysis here is often mistaken, but it is not inherently flawed. Feyerabend does a service to the history and philosophy of science when he says that science should be prepared to overthrow its own past conceptions. This book should not be mistaken for a systematic approach on how to redefine science and the scientific method.
It instead asks the hard questions about what science was, and where it might go from here. View all 3 comments. Apr 22, knig rated it really liked it Shelves: Feyerabend, Kuhn and Edward de Bono published within short intervals of each other circa s, with practically indistinguishable platforms. The idea is to discredit empirical met Feyerabend, Kuhn and Edward de Bono published within short intervals of each other circa s, with practically indistinguishable platforms.
That this has merit is indisputable: How then, are we to harness this understanding of the non linear nature of progress to any purpose? Fayerabend proposes anarchistic epistemology: As existing methodologies are predicated on falsified facts agreedscientists must take a step back and re-examine and re-construct the so called building blocks of theorems in order to arrive at a new experience of reality, even if recontextualizing methodological qualia means introducing irrational alternatives.
De Bono has more success with this platform since his primary audience seems to be the business world: Which facts, exactly are we meant to discard? And which to keep? How many feydrabend hypothesis are to be accommodated, numbers please, in this quest for anarchistic epistemological solutions? Which chimera do you fund with the hope of making, say, teleportation pwul reality?
Funding aside, how does one come up with these irrational ideas in the first place? Feyerabend is silent on this subject. It is erroneous in fact to consider taking any steps back whatsoever to re-evaluate scientific facts: In essence, they are accredited failures.
Why should I discount them so I can start making the same mistakes again through trial and error? It seems to me, although I am no scientistthat once a plethora of non theory compliant data and facts accumulate, a tipping point is reached when the brain can no longer justify falsification and paradigm shifts occur. Is it a coincidence, then, that Feyerabend, Kuhn, and De Bono are flogging the same horse at the same time?
Why did no one have this eureka fegerabend one hundred years ago? I personally cojtra not discount a sequential as well as a tangential element in scientific quest.
Jun 06, Philipp rated it really liked it Shelves: This took forever to read, not because the contents were boring, but because most of it went way over my head. Sometimes, entire pages seem to have been machine-translated from German, to which Feyerabend added Greek and Latin quotes, and cites ten different philosophers and forgotten authors to make the confusion complete.
I had to look up quite a few English words incommensurable, counter-inductive, etc. But then suddenly, the next 5 pages are crystal clear and genius! To summarize his poin This took forever to read, not because the contents were boring, ;aul because most of it went way over my head. To summarize his points: Scientific conduct and progress is much more chaotic and “law-less” than proponents and practitioners of science realize. He makes his point by showing how Galileo didn’t win Feysrabend over to Copernicanism by showing a theory that explained reality “better” as one would assumeGalileo won everyone over by inventing a few tools, hiding a few inconvenient datapoints, being a good propagandist, and a lot of trickery.
For me as cotra scientist reading Against Method is freeing. There is a break in between how we do science and how we present it to the public – for example, the structure of a scientific publiction has absolutely nothing to do with how the actual results were obtained. In my case with bioinformatics, I start to play around with data, and walk down paths of which don’t work. I get some interesting results, and try to make sense of them by looking through the literature, and I finally find some biological phenomenon that might fit.
Using that phenomenon as a start, I think how I can prove or disprove it – find one way to prove it – and write the paper. PHDComics had this fitting comic a few years ago. Feyerabend correctly sees that stringent application of the “rules” of science would make science impossible. For example, if falsification were to be applied stringently we simply couldn’t have bioinformatics. Play around with one of the settings in your genome assembler, and you get a slightly metpdo genome – which one is the correct one?
If I computationally predict genes in a genome, I get aroundgenes. Which ones do really exist? There are surely ways to falsify this, but the technology does not exist or it’s a tedious, expensive and literally life-consuming work. As long as the technology does not exist, we proceed and publish: This makes science much more a field of play than people realize.
Schools do not teach this: Yet a large part of my work is playing around in an R console, looking for fun things, making pretty pictures, and drinking free coffee. Where I don’t agree with Feyerabend in the slightest is his demand to split science from politics – I can understand where he’s coming from, I guess up until the 80s the results of science where set in stone.