What do you think?
Rate this book
Key Contemporary Thinkers (Polity)
Feyerabend: Philosophy, Science and Society
This book is the first comprehensive critical study of the work of Paul Feyerabend, one of the foremost twentieth-century philosophers of science.
The book traces the evolution of Feyerabend's thought, beginning with his early attempt to graft insights from Wittgenstein's conception of meaning onto Popper's falsificationist philosophy. The key elements of Feyerabend's model of the acquisition of knowledge are identified and critically evaluated. Feyerabend's early work emerges as a continuation of Popper's philosophy of science, rather than as a contribution to the historical approach to science with which he is usually associated.
In his more notorious later work, Feyerabend claimed that there was, and should be, no such thing as the scientific method. The roots of Feyerabend's 'epistemological anarchism' are exposed and the weaknesses of his cultural relativism are brought out.
Throughout the book, Preston discusses the influence of Feyerabend's thought on contemporary philosophers and traces his stimulating but divided legacy. The book will be of interest to students of philosophy, methodology, and the social sciences.
The book traces the evolution of Feyerabend's thought, beginning with his early attempt to graft insights from Wittgenstein's conception of meaning onto Popper's falsificationist philosophy. The key elements of Feyerabend's model of the acquisition of knowledge are identified and critically evaluated. Feyerabend's early work emerges as a continuation of Popper's philosophy of science, rather than as a contribution to the historical approach to science with which he is usually associated.
In his more notorious later work, Feyerabend claimed that there was, and should be, no such thing as the scientific method. The roots of Feyerabend's 'epistemological anarchism' are exposed and the weaknesses of his cultural relativism are brought out.
Throughout the book, Preston discusses the influence of Feyerabend's thought on contemporary philosophers and traces his stimulating but divided legacy. The book will be of interest to students of philosophy, methodology, and the social sciences.
- GenresPhilosophy
256 pages, Paperback
First published August 1, 1997
3 people are currently reading
33 people want to read
About the author
John Preston
7 books3 followersJohn Preston is a Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Reading. He writes on the philosophy of science and the mind.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 10, 2024
This book, as I write this, has seven ratings on Goodreads. These ratings consist of one five star, three four stars, two three stars, and one one star. None of these poor folks was brave enough to write a review, so why they gave it the rating they gave it is a mystery. I will brave the Goodreads waters and write the first real review this book has received. I had very mixed feelings about it.
Let me start off by saying that Preston seems to have very little admiration for Feyerabend. Paul Feyerabend was one of the most controversial, and I would say most misrepresented philosophers of the twentieth century. When I picked up this book I assumed this was an attempt to give Feyerabend his own fair hearing, but what it seems is that Preston was well aware how his colleagues have made themselves look bad responding to Feyerabend with childish ad hominems, and straw men, and so he has tried to write a somewhat respectable book about how Feyerabend was a crank who lost his mind and said stupid things about science.
The bulk of the book is concerned with connecting the early Feyerabend, who was a protégé of Popper, to his later views, as well as comparing Feyerabend to Thomas Kuhn. I found it very interesting, as well as mostly sound. I'm not completely sure that Preston is representing Feyerabend's views accurately and I found some of his counter arguments to be based on straw men, or being dismissive of arguments that have much more teeth to them then he seems to think, but I get the impression he was trying to make sense of Feyerabend's views in good faith.
The last two sections deal with Feyerabend's argument that there is no scientific method, and his ideas about science within a free society. This is where I think Preston ignores the substantial points that Feyerabend has made, and his book simply results in another example of a philosopher refusing to take on Feyerabend's argument head on.
What Feyerabend argues about the scientific method is that any single rule proposed for science can be countered by an instance where following that rule would be a detriment to scientific advancement. So to "rationalists" the counter to Feyerabend should be easy. All they have to do is name one rule in which no counter example in the history of science exists.
Preston curiously ignores a major feature of Feyerabend's view of scientific methodology, that scientific advancement proceeds counter-inductively. What he means by this is that scientists who begin to have a crisis start to "noodle around" using "unscientific" methods to try and solve a problem, which ultimately leads to a scientific revolution, and back to what Thomas Kuhn called "normal science." The best description of Feyerabend's view I have ever heard is that great scientists are like great artists. Einstein is like the Beatles, but most physicists are just cover bands doing Einstein's greatest hits. Preston ignores the meat of Feyerabend's argument, just like all his critics do, much to my frustration.
More annoying, Preston constructs a straw man of Feyerabend's ideas about science and the state. Preston makes an argument about Feyerabend's admiration for J. S. Mill, which is perfectly valid, but he then uses that to argue that what Feyerabend means by separation of science and state is a "right libertarian" construction. This ignores the fact that in his essay "Science in a Free Society" as well as in his final book "The Tyranny of Science", a major criticism of the scientific community was its coziness with capitalism. The reason Feyerabend opposes scientific tyranny is directly because he sees it as resulting in a capitalist technocracy, and that the idea of the superiority of "western values", which scientific ideology often espouses is rooted in white supremacy.
A key to understanding Feyerabend is to compare him to Nietzsche. Nietzsche at first blush seems to be thoroughly right wing, but his philosophy has become much more influential on the left than the right over the last sixty years. Nietzsche famously claimed that "God was dead" and said this caused a problem for society, since the ideology that had replaced God, science, could not adequately replace the role religion played in human society. Feyerabend's arguments about science are a direct continuation of the ones made by Nietzsche, even if it seems like Feyerabend himself never realized it. Both philosophers saw how science wants to be the only game in town, and how horrible that result would be.
Let me start off by saying that Preston seems to have very little admiration for Feyerabend. Paul Feyerabend was one of the most controversial, and I would say most misrepresented philosophers of the twentieth century. When I picked up this book I assumed this was an attempt to give Feyerabend his own fair hearing, but what it seems is that Preston was well aware how his colleagues have made themselves look bad responding to Feyerabend with childish ad hominems, and straw men, and so he has tried to write a somewhat respectable book about how Feyerabend was a crank who lost his mind and said stupid things about science.
The bulk of the book is concerned with connecting the early Feyerabend, who was a protégé of Popper, to his later views, as well as comparing Feyerabend to Thomas Kuhn. I found it very interesting, as well as mostly sound. I'm not completely sure that Preston is representing Feyerabend's views accurately and I found some of his counter arguments to be based on straw men, or being dismissive of arguments that have much more teeth to them then he seems to think, but I get the impression he was trying to make sense of Feyerabend's views in good faith.
The last two sections deal with Feyerabend's argument that there is no scientific method, and his ideas about science within a free society. This is where I think Preston ignores the substantial points that Feyerabend has made, and his book simply results in another example of a philosopher refusing to take on Feyerabend's argument head on.
What Feyerabend argues about the scientific method is that any single rule proposed for science can be countered by an instance where following that rule would be a detriment to scientific advancement. So to "rationalists" the counter to Feyerabend should be easy. All they have to do is name one rule in which no counter example in the history of science exists.
Preston curiously ignores a major feature of Feyerabend's view of scientific methodology, that scientific advancement proceeds counter-inductively. What he means by this is that scientists who begin to have a crisis start to "noodle around" using "unscientific" methods to try and solve a problem, which ultimately leads to a scientific revolution, and back to what Thomas Kuhn called "normal science." The best description of Feyerabend's view I have ever heard is that great scientists are like great artists. Einstein is like the Beatles, but most physicists are just cover bands doing Einstein's greatest hits. Preston ignores the meat of Feyerabend's argument, just like all his critics do, much to my frustration.
More annoying, Preston constructs a straw man of Feyerabend's ideas about science and the state. Preston makes an argument about Feyerabend's admiration for J. S. Mill, which is perfectly valid, but he then uses that to argue that what Feyerabend means by separation of science and state is a "right libertarian" construction. This ignores the fact that in his essay "Science in a Free Society" as well as in his final book "The Tyranny of Science", a major criticism of the scientific community was its coziness with capitalism. The reason Feyerabend opposes scientific tyranny is directly because he sees it as resulting in a capitalist technocracy, and that the idea of the superiority of "western values", which scientific ideology often espouses is rooted in white supremacy.
A key to understanding Feyerabend is to compare him to Nietzsche. Nietzsche at first blush seems to be thoroughly right wing, but his philosophy has become much more influential on the left than the right over the last sixty years. Nietzsche famously claimed that "God was dead" and said this caused a problem for society, since the ideology that had replaced God, science, could not adequately replace the role religion played in human society. Feyerabend's arguments about science are a direct continuation of the ones made by Nietzsche, even if it seems like Feyerabend himself never realized it. Both philosophers saw how science wants to be the only game in town, and how horrible that result would be.
Displaying 1 of 1 review