How To Defend Society Against Science
An overview of Feyerabend’s noteworthy contributions to the philosophy of science and his argument for epistemological anarchism
Introduction to Paul Feyerabend
Born in 1924, Austrian philosopher and scientist Paul Feyerabend made significant contributions to the philosophy of science and sociology of scientific inquiry. Karl Popper, as well as his contemporaries Imre Lakatos and Thomas Kuhn, influenced Feyerabend’s work. Instead of calling himself a philosopher, he preferred to be known as an entertainer.
His anarchistic view of science stems from Kuhn’s claim that reason/rationality is not the sole basis for the occurrence of a paradigm shift. Against Method, Feyerabend’s pioneering work was originally supposed to be co-written with his good friend Lakatos (As For and Against Method), but Lakatos’ premature death kept this from happening.
The influence of the counter-culture movements of the 1960s is clear in his work.
Against ‘One’ Method
In agreement with Lakatos and Kuhn, Feyerabend acknowledges that a single scientific theory is seldom consistent with all accepted and relevant facts and that ad-hoc postulates which help in the conservation of the prevalent paradigm are important. But, he goes even further and claims that ad-hoc ideas/theories play a more important role in science. Quoting examples like that of Galileo, Feyerabend points out how it is common for scientists to completely deviate from the commonly accepted scientific method by proposing ad-hoc theories as justifications for observations, which are only later justified in theory (and consequently are supported by other theories).
On Paradigm Shifts
Feyerabend agrees with Kuhn by reiterating that the influence of the current paradigm is significant when it comes to the matters of interpreting the observed phenomenon. This includes the (new) theories that are introduced. He pointed out how the new theory is in agreement with the old in most ways and not be guided by observation alone, emphasizing the stifling nature of this influence.
No View Should Be Immune To Critical Scrutiny
Expressing his dislike for the dogmatic, absolutist and arrogant attitude of scientists towards scientific facts/theories, Feyerabend states that no theory, no mater how great/influential/groundbreaking it seems, should be exempt from critical scrutiny. Scientists who believe that they fully understand reality and those who disagree with their truth are ignorant contribute to this bad image of science.
For example, Newtonian mechanics, which was believed to be true for over 250 years, was later disproved by Einstein and hence rejected.
Epistemological Anarchism or ‘Anything Goes’
Feyerabend derives from his realization of the points given above that scientific progress cannot be understood or appreciated in terms of a single set of methodological rules that the scientists abide by. This would hinder their activity and hence limit scientific progress. This is where he introduces his popular saying — “Anything Goes”, by pointing out how ad-hoc postulates (that are rule-breaking) are often the ones that lead to scientific progress. This is Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchism. It contends that the concept of science operating according to fixed, universal norms is impractical, destructive, and harmful to science itself.
In his provocative book Against Method, he contends that science should have no rules and that it should not be inhibited by any rules or methods. By enforcing rules/methods that scientists need to stick to, scientific progress is hindered and limited. Also, in the history of science, there is no single scientific method that can boast of being so (absolutely) right that no important scientific breakthrough would have been prevented by it being followed.
Feyerabend Was Not Anti-Science
It is a common misconception to think of Feyerabend as being anti-science. In reality, he was a champion of science. What he firmly opposed/disliked is the dogmatic attitude that became associated with it. Most of his work is devoted to pointing out these epistemic problematic aspects of science, and encouraging epistemic humility amongst the scientific community/society.
Galileo's Example
Feyerabend greatly admired Galileo. He embodied the traits that he claimed scientists need to have. Galileo defended his ideas against the autocratic church by advocating his heliocentric view of the solar system (in opposition to the geocentric view that was upheld by the church).
In his time, Galileo did not have empirical reasons in support of his theory. In fact, there were good reasons for believing that he was wrong. On the other hand, the Heliocentric theory had in its favor the views/works of Ptolemy, Aristotle, Copernicus and the like. However, the majority of the scientific community of his time was against him.
Later it was proved that Galileo was right and theory, observation and the community were all wrong. But no scientific method could fit this case in it justifiably, be it Kuhnian, Popperian, or Logical Positivist method(s).
Galileo here is the anarchist who did not care for following the accepted and influential scientific methods of his age and followed his radical theory, which was later proven to be right. This rebel-spirit is what Feyerabend promotes in the scientific community for maximizing progress and breakthroughs.
Science as an Art
A radical idea presented by him is that science is a form of art or human creativity. This he supports by reasoning that like in art, there is no fixed algorithm that can predict the course of science. Science should not suppress creativity, instead, it should promote it in every sphere possible. He goes on to say that the greatest of art usually comes from going against the method, and this act of defying method can be seen in science too as a number of influential scientists have proposed radical theories that have come to be accepted as sciences’ greatest advancements.
On Society and Science
As per Feyerabend’s pluralistic view, science is not the sole authority of truth, and we should question its claim of being that. A firm believer in the non-existence of a universal scientific method, he attacked the privileged status that science had in western society.
Expressing his sociological view, he says that because of its dogmatic nature, science had become the new church. Science, not unlike religion, has come to be an institutional practice that is equally intolerant of dissent. Comparing scientific claims to religious ones, he pointed out that the ideologies of the former (like the latter) do not lead to guaranteed conclusions as there is no universal method employed. Scientists have become intellectual bullies. This is detrimental to the progress of science itself. He was irked by scientists’ disposition of looking down upon fields like astrology. He pointed out how, instead of being emancipation (from dogmatic ideologies like religion), science can be repressive too, and hence society needs to be cautious about the influence that is attributed to it.
How To Defend Society Against Science
The central dilemma that Feyerabend presented in his essay is as follows:
i) It is an oppressive ideological act to assert that science provides absolute facts when it does not.
ii) A rigid adherence to science runs the risk of deteriorating the human soul (even if it were to reveal truths).
The purpose of How To Defend Society Against Science was to protect society from dogmatic ideologies (here, science). Throughout its history, science has been viewed as the enterprise that questions norms, and this is what has led to its elevated position as exempt from the scrutiny that other disciplines are regularly subjected to. He compared the teaching of scientific facts to that of religious doctrines, the similarity being that both claim to be incontrovertible without argument. He said that science and its absolute ‘facts’ have gone unchecked for centuries. Science should have been a tool for bringing down other dogmatic ideologies that had run their course, till it itself is brought down (or is, at least, questioned) for the same reasons. But instead, it is being taught today as if it is an infallible and incontrovertible fact (like religion was taught).
On the Correctness of the Scientific Method
Feyerabend suggests the possibility of one of the following two — a) there is no particular scientific methods that is distinct from the methods of other ideologies/disciplines in terms of accuracy, or b) there is no particular scientific method at all. He chose the second option and (with the help of Lakatos), laid out the differences between methodological rules and independently-functioning methodology. He also dismissed induction as a viable scientific method.
On the Results Supporting the Method
Feyerabend questioned the role of results in securing the eminence of science. He pointed out how many of the groundbreaking and influential scientific results were previously considered pseudo-scientific (before science enveloped them under its domain), for example- alternative medicine. He goes on to say that even people like Bohr and Einstein considered themselves outsiders, yet made great contributions to science.
Not A Source Of Unquestionable Truth
Cautioning the society for being wary of science, Feyerabend points out that when it comes to state affairs, the status attributed to science should be no different than that of religion (in other words, it should be detached/dissociated from it). We should recognize that science is not a source of absolute, invincible truth.
Science and Education
Feyerabend criticizes the education institutes for perpetuating the incontrovertible status of science by their method of teaching it. The impressionable minds of students are fed scientific facts that they are not allowed to question and are just supposed to accept at face value. Coming up with opposing ideologies is not encouraged, nor is this attitude nurtured. Hence, they are forced to become ‘scientific followers’.
Endnote
Feyerabend expresses his wish for there to be competition to science so that its incontrovertible status is reevaluated. He also encourages free-mindedness and openness in science. Science needs to find a balance between creativity and adherence to method for it to progress.
