Tansu KUCUKONCU , PhD
( Tansu KÜÇÜKÖNCÜ ( in Turkish alphabet ) )
Against Method :
Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
( Paul Karl Feyerabend , 1975 )
Book criticism by Tansu KUCUKONCU
Feyerabend states that 'science is exaggerated'. By most of the people
it's assumed that science is the only way to truths. He is against this
idea. He is complaining about the tightness of the rules of science.
He is trying to support his ideas with examples from the history of
science: Galileo, Aristotales, Kopernik, Newtonian physics, Quantum
physics, medicine in China etc.
I want to give Feyerabend's main ideas in paragraphs below with my
thoughts about them:
* Science may not be the best way of thinking for any time.
** But everytime, it must have higher priority than other ways of
thinking . Because it is examined and accepted by the authorities, at
least for the period up to that time.
* Science must not have certain tight rules and methods. Anything must
not border science.
** Without some rules and methods you cannot protect the science. Other-
wise you can lost everything. Having working truths may become impossible.
* Science must be open to new ideas.
** But not more than enough. New ideas must fight against the old ones.
This is necessary for protection of science aginst degeneration.
* Theories which seems unsuccesfull must not be thrown away. Consist-
ency rule is a barrier for development. Consensus is another barrier.
** If new theory works well, there is not much need to deal with the
old one. Consistency is needed for protection. Sometimes it may cause
slow progress. But most of the time it prevents regression. In the ab-
sence of consensus-especially n strategical subjects-then a great chaos
occurs. Everything becomes like an arap's hair.
* Science may be able to use out-of-science objects.
** But, after bringing acceptable explanations. Because usage of unex-
plained things carries more risc than usage of explained things.
* Science must not turn out to be an ideology.
** O.K.
* Usage of approximations in science is poorness.
** No problem if everything goes well with approximations. Science,
especially applied science; that's engineering, does not need pure
certainty.
* Science must be independent.
** Sure. But it seems impossible. Because science needs money. So, who
have money can canalize science easily.
* Science must be democratic. Acception of new theories must be per-
formed by the participation of all the people.
** Its democracy must be limited. Acception must be performed between
the people who knows the subject well.
* Science education must be objective; the teaching material must not
be bordered by the theories which are in use.
** Time is not enough for doing everything. Knowledge of accepted
truths is a must for development.
* He defends the idea of being against methods and supports anarchy in
science.
** Isn't cause of anarchy searching for better methods ? Else, what is
its pro ?
* He is against the authority of mind evem in science.
** Then what will be our reference? How can we define our truths? What
can I trust when deciding? If my mind is not an authority for me. It's
impossible that someone else's can be. How can I trust the ideas of a man
who does not trust the authority of his mind for himself.
What is the definition of mind? Mind is not static. Rules of mind can
change.
* A last thing about this book. Feyerabend dislikes ad hocs. But when
telling the example of Galileo he is contradicting to himself; he supports
Galileo since he behaved against the methods. But Galileo uses ad hocs...
