Tratado Contra El Metodo by Paul K Feyerabend, , available at Book Depository with free delivery worldwide. Tratado contra el método: esquema de una teoría anarquista del voice in the philosophy of science, Paul K. Feyerabend was born and educated in Vienna. Paul Karl Feyerabend was an Austrian-born philosopher of science best known for his work as a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, .
|Published (Last):||23 March 2010|
|PDF File Size:||4.47 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.3 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Request removal from index. In other projects Wikimedia Commons Wikiquote. He doesn’t wish to get into the logistics of what is reasonable.
Okay–I’ll say at the outset that the incommensurability of scientific theories mdtodo a fascinating concept and one that I’m really not informed enough to have any substantive opinion. Galileo’s wanted to believe Copernicus’ theory to be true. Feyerabend quotes extensively from a multitude of authors that I know poorly 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 Galileo, Copernicus, Tycho Brahe, Newton, Einstein, Bohr and classical literature Homer, also in the original.
Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism allows for this but overthrows science’s claims for certainty. I am not sure who to side with. I also share his skepticism about the creep of science into public policy — not because policy should not be guided by feysrabend facts, but exactly because there is no clear definition of “science”.
Follow the Author
The methods that philosophers of science come up with are not compatible with what really happened historically, which means that if we adhered to them we should have kept, for example, the geocentric system. Against method, against the ideal of science but not against science. Science has enveloped every part of society from jails Correctional facilities now!
Before such theories were articulated, Galileo had to make use of ad hoc methods and proceed counterinductively. He argues that today’s science has become mehodo rigid that no one can work outside its methodology. Feyerabend persuasively argues that if anything, science is much sloppier and irrational than what its methodological, arrogant image likes to reveal.
Standards are more than arbitrary, historically determined, totalitarian-like, rationalist schemes.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge by Paul Karl Feyerabend
And Galileo’s case is the holy le in the philosophy of science. Feyerbend takes a cue from Kuhn about how science progresses. For instance, he takes a provocative position that actually swayed me to rethink my view on whether or not Creationism should be taught in public schools.
Based on these arguments, Feyerabend defended the idea that science should be separated from the state in the same way that religion and state feyeranend separated in a modern secular society Against Method 3rd ed. Education should allow us to understand that everything is a myth and we are free to choose our own.
I believe Feyerabend is right to point out these limitations, and that we should all take a longer pause before we jump on board with ideas that are “established” by scientific research. Plato’s lists of subjects in Chapter vii of his Republicthese are the ways mftodo are still being used today. Basically, if Feyerabend’s portrayal of Galileo is true, le was a sort of fanatic who went head-on into a storm of shit he couldn’t completely confirm having only mefodo faith in Copernicus to keep him warm.
Similarly, his claims metodk the lack of use-value for science are honestly a bit of a cop-out. My only beef is that he assumes that ideas are politically neutral, or contrra all ideas are equally non-neutral, which I think ignores their motivations.
It seems clear to me that all attempts to “explain science” have, to date, been unsuccessful usefulness of these accounts is up for debate of course but none are without problems. I cannot stop praising his book, because there is so much in here. Get to Know Us. There is no one scientific method, and there is a lengthy discussion about incommensurability that is blithely summed up with “it’s more of a problem for philosophers than scientists”. Edit this record Mark as duplicate Export citation Find it on Scholar Request removal from index Translate to english Revision history.
Feyerabend’s line of thought seems to be that if “anything goes” as he glibly puts it in science, science has no special claims to knowledge and that other ways of knowing should be respected. On Against Method, Feyerabend offers a small contribution emancipate Science from its worst deliriums.
Contra o Metodo: Paul Feyerabend: : Books
Amazon Drive Cloud storage from Amazon. Epistemological anarchism Criticism of falsificationism Incommensurability. Although I do not agree with all that he says, in some parts he is too radical for me, and I am not on-board for his view of incommensurability, it was still a fascinating, eye-opening read.