In 1975, Feyerabend published his book “Against Method.” With this book, Feyerabend established himself as an impetuous critic of rationalism, an excellent connoisseur of the history of science, and a rebel who is averse to any glorification of science. The book contains the slogan that has since become inextricably linked with Feyerabend's views: “Anything goes.” For critics, “Anything goes” is the anarchistic principle that, in Feyerabend's view, should underlie all scientific activity and the democratic constitution of society. Feyerabend himself suspected that most critics apparently stopped reading the book right after the first appearance of “Anything goes.” With “Against Method,” he created turmoil where scientists saw themselves as guardians of the only truth, as experts in knowledge, as champions of pure method. Some resented the mirror he held up to them, while others, in his brilliant analyses of the history of science, recognized themselves and their peers and also saw that scientific rules must be broken if we are to gain knowledge. The idea of a fixed method and the insistence on a rigid theory is not only naive, but ideology, and the disregard of other sources of knowledge is a sign of narrow-mindedness and chauvinism.

错误:搜索内容不能为空,请输入英文关键词
错误:关键词超出字数限制,请精简
高级检索

Against the Tyranny of Method

  • Wolfgang Frindte

摘要

In 1975, Feyerabend published his book “Against Method.” With this book, Feyerabend established himself as an impetuous critic of rationalism, an excellent connoisseur of the history of science, and a rebel who is averse to any glorification of science. The book contains the slogan that has since become inextricably linked with Feyerabend's views: “Anything goes.” For critics, “Anything goes” is the anarchistic principle that, in Feyerabend's view, should underlie all scientific activity and the democratic constitution of society. Feyerabend himself suspected that most critics apparently stopped reading the book right after the first appearance of “Anything goes.” With “Against Method,” he created turmoil where scientists saw themselves as guardians of the only truth, as experts in knowledge, as champions of pure method. Some resented the mirror he held up to them, while others, in his brilliant analyses of the history of science, recognized themselves and their peers and also saw that scientific rules must be broken if we are to gain knowledge. The idea of a fixed method and the insistence on a rigid theory is not only naive, but ideology, and the disregard of other sources of knowledge is a sign of narrow-mindedness and chauvinism.