578:
follows from considerations of concrete research practices. His third criticism concerns
Lakatos' argument that theories of rationality should be tested against the value judgments of the 'scientific elite' in specific historical episodes. First, Feyerabend claims that the value judgments of the scientific elite are rarely uniform and so they will not uniquely choose a particular theory of scientific rationality. Second, the value judgments of scientific elites are often made on the basis of ignorance. Therefore, there seem to be strong reasons to not accept those value judgments. Third, Lakatos assumes that the standards of the scientific elite are superior to other value judgments (e.g., of witches) and therefore does not provide an argument against relativism. Finally, Feyerabend provides a 'cosmological' criticism of Lakatos' theory of rationality. Lakatos claims that theories of scientific rationality reconstruct the 'internal' growth of knowledge and ignore the 'external' (e.g., sociological, psychological, political) features of scienfic practice. However, without knowledge of the external features of scientific practice, Feyerabend claims that we cannot know whether a theory of scientific rationality will actually succeed in practice.
591:
incompetent books flood the market, empty verbiage full of strange and esoteric terms claims to express profound insights, 'experts' without brains, without character, and without even a modicum of intellectual, stylistic, emotional temperament tell us about our 'condition' and the means of improving it." He distinguishes between a general education, which is focused on the development of free individuals, and professionalization where one learns the ideology of a specific trade. In a general education, pupils are introduced to many intellectual and cultural traditions which they then engage with critically to make free choices about how they want to live their lives. Professionalization, by contrast, introduces pupils to a single tradition and often involves teaching this tradition as epistemically superior to its rivals. Feyerabend claims that increasing pushes for professionalization were coming at the expense of a general education. Feyerabend criticizes this on ethical grounds, as it reduces students to intellectual slaves, and on the grounds that a general education is more conductive to the development of knowledge.
389:, which is the opposite of the (then) commonly accepted rule that theories should be developed that are consistent with known facts. Feyerabend argues for counterinduction by showing that theories that conflict with known facts are useful for revealing 'natural interpretations' which must be made explicit so that they can be examined. Natural interpretations are interpretations of experience, expressed in language, that follow automatically and unconsciously from describing observations. After a theory has been accepted for a long period of time, it becomes habit to describe events or processes using certain concepts. Because, Feyerabend argues, observation underdetermines the ways we describe what we observe, theories that redescribe experience in new ways force us to make comparisons between old natural interpretations and new ones. This is the first step to evaluating the plausibility of either and so counterinduction aids in providing a thorough critical assessment of our acceptance of particular theories.
469:
Aristotelian worldview. Natural interpretations, defined by
Feyerabend, are interpretations of phenomena which happen naturally and automatically in our perception and the ways we attach language to what we observe. After accepting a theory for a long period of time, natural interpretations become implicit and forgotten and, therefore, difficult to test. By contrasting natural interpretations with other interpretations, they are made explicit and can be tested. Therefore, to fully scrutinize the Aristotelian worldview, Feyerabend suggests that Galileo was right to conjecture a new theory that revealed its natural interpretations.
368:. 'Anything goes' is therefore not a methodological prescription but "the terrified exclamation of the rationalist who takes a closer look at history". More recently, it has been argued that epistemological anarchism is a positive methodological proposal but comes in two inconsistent guises. On the one hand, epistemological anarchism means that scientists should be opportunists who adapt their methods to the situation at hand while, on the other hand, anarchism also signifies an unrestricted pluralism and therefore constitutes a radical generalization of his earlier arguments for pluralism.
27:
409:. According to Feyerabend's reconstruction, Galileo did not justify this hypothesis by reference to known facts nor did he offer an unfalsified conjecture that had more empirical content than its predecessor. Rather, Galileo's hypothesis would rationally have been considered to be false by the existing evidence at the time and it is lower in empirical content than
545:
allowed to be pursued regardless of their lack of empirical content, internal inconsistency, or conflicts with experimental results. Feyerabend agrees with this claim but argues that applying it consistently entails that we cannot cease the pursuit of research programs after they have been degenerating (i.e., becoming increasingly
445:. Moreover, there were well-confirmed reasons to think – as the Aristotelians thought – that light behaves differently outside of the sublunar sphere and so telescopic vision would not have any justification for being veridical. In addition, when Galileo tested the telescope with many observational astronomers in
449:
on terrestrial objects, it produced indeterminate and double images, optical illusions about the placement and magnification of celestial bodies, and after images even when tested on terrestrial objects. Because of this, Galileo had no new evidence to support his conjecture that the earth completes a
355:
Scholars have disputed the precise meaning of epistemological anarchism. John
Preston claims that 'anything goes' signals Feyerabend's abandonment of normative philosophy. In other words, while Feyerabend defended pluralism in his works in the 1950s and 60s, Against Method represents a development in
532:
always comingled. Discounting evidence, for example, is often necessary for discovery is disbarred for the sake of justification. Justifying scientific theories has implications for what research is conducted and, therefore, questions about what is justified also affects the paths open to discovery.
531:
is to reject the validity of the discovery/justification distinction. He argues that while the distinction can be maintained abstractly, it does not find a "point of attack" in scientific practice. This is because the two contexts are not separated in different phases of scientific research, but are
489:
However, Galileo did not present his work in this vein. If he did, Feyerabend conjectures that his new theory would have received little attention and would not have stimulated further inquiry into the
Copernican system. Because of this, Galileo uses propaganda to make it seem as if his theories are
472:
The main example of the influence of natural interpretations that
Feyerabend provided was the tower argument presented as an objection to the theory of a moving earth. Aristotelians accepted the proposition that a stone, or any solid body made of earth, dropped from a tower lands directly beneath it
172:
contains many verbatim excerpts from
Feyerabend's earlier papers including "Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism", "How to be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological", and "Problems of Empiricism, Part I." Because of this, Feyerabend claims that " is not a book, it is a
573:
to illustrate this point. Because of this, Feyerabend claims that although
Lakatos insists that he has provided rational rules for the elimination of research programs, these rules are empty because they do not forbid any kind of behavior. Therefore, Lakatos is an 'anarchist in disguise' since it
544:
contains a chapter devoted to critically discussing
Lakatos' methodological of research programs, although this chapter was removed in subsequent editions. Feyerabend offers several criticisms. Lakatos claims that research programs should be permitted 'breathing space' where research programs are
477:
instead of vertically. Since this does not happen, Aristotelians thought the earth did not move. Galileo's hypothesis reveals that this assumes that all motion is "operative" (i.e., noticeable in perception). Galileo denies this assumption and argues that the stone falls in a parabola relative to
220:(then called New Left Books). Feyerabend came to regret this decision because of their editorial choices. Three more editions were released, in 1988, 1993, and posthumously in 2010. Significant changes were made including removing or adding chapters and appendices with new, updated introductions.
590:
in his time. He claims that the primary role of education was to stunt individual creativity by forcing them to accept and research on topics that students did not choose for themselves. He also claims that education is responsible for what he calls "intellectual pollution" where "illiterate and
577:
Feyerabend provides a second criticism that ends with the same conclusion. According to
Lakatos, his theory of scientific rationality only contains heuristics for its implementation rather than direct advice. Because of this, Lakatos' theory on its own provides no advice and the specific advise
468:
Feyerabend does not just argue that
Galileo and his followers acted "irrationally" from the perspective of inductivism and falsificationism, but that it was reasonable that they did so. This is because Galileo's conjecture was able to reveal the natural interpretations that followed from the
339:
translates more directly to "Against the Forced Constraint of Method" emphasizing that it is the imposition of methodological rules that is rejected rather that the uses of methods altogether. Feyerabend offers two parallel arguments for this position, one conceptual and one historical. The
376:
Feyerabend contends that for every methodological rule, there is a 'counter rule' – namely, a methodological rule that recommends the opposite of its counter – which also has value. As an example of this general hypothesis, Feyerabend defends 'counterinduction' as the counter rule to
603:
was largely negative amongst philosophers of science, with a few notable exceptions. Most of the commentary focused on Feyerabend's philosophical arguments rather than the Galileo case study. The primary criticisms were that epistemological anarchism is nothing but a repetition of
523:, there is no logic about how scientists develop scientific theories but there should be a logic of confirming or disconfirming scientific theories. Once this distinction is accepted, then Feyerabend's claim that 'anything goes' would be a truism and would not run against
340:
conceptual argument aims to establish that it is always legitimate to violate established forms of scientific practice with the hopes of establishing a new form of scientific rationality. The historical argument provides examples of scientists profitably violating rules.
215:
but then died, the paper was expanded into a book published in 1975. Lakatos originally encouraged Feyerabend to publish with Cambridge University Press because they would be less concerned with their reputation than smaller presses, but Feyerabend chose to publish with
424:
suggested by the motion of the earth was inaccurate and the differences "were big enough to be known even to the most bleary-eyed sailor." In addition, the motion of the earth on its axis leads to the wrong predictions of the relative brightness of
647:, he writes that he sometimes wishes that "he had never written that fucking book." This response led to Feyerabend's gradual removal from the academic community which also corresponded to changes of research topics in his work in the 1980s.
322:
and that it is not appropriate to impose a single methodological rule upon scientific practices. Rather, 'anything goes', meaning that scientists should be free to pursue whatever research seems interesting to them. The primary target of
150:. The central thesis of the book is that science should become an anarchic enterprise. In the context of the work, the term "anarchy" refers to epistemological anarchy, which does not remain within one single prescriptive
494:
is embedded in Aristotelian common sense when it isn't (Aristotelian relative motion involves many moving bodies with dynamic effects noticeable in perception). According to Feyerabend, Galileo uses the technique of
1610:
Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science > 4. Analyses of Theories & Methods of Physics and Psychology. 1970. Editors: M. Radner and S. Winokur > Open Access > Under the "Whoops!" message click
441:. However, the telescope was not theoretically understood at the time. The best theory of optics was Kepler's, which Galileo didn't understand personally, which says nothing about how light reflects off
499:
where he invites readers to "remember" that they already believed in relation motion in Galileo's sense. Using this method, he disguises how radical of a break his new theory is from then common sense.
457:. Aristotle's theory of motion was a part of a broader theory of change, which included growth, decay and qualitative changes (such as changes in color). Galileo's theory of motion focuses solely on
1613:
From the resulting file '4_Theories&Methods.zip' you need the three Feyerabend sections, 4_2_1_Feyerabend.pdf, 4_2_2_Feyerabend.pdf, 4_2_3_Feyerabend.pdf and the immediate following article on
612:, that Feyerabend is inconsistent with himself by arguing against method while arguing for methods (like counterinduction), and that he criticizes a strawman. One positive review came from
1608:
The first, 1970 edition, is available for download in pdf form from the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science (part of the University of Minnesota). Follow this link path:
420:
According to the existing evidence in the early 17th century, the position that the earth rotates on its axis would have rightly been regarded as false. For example, Galileo's
473:
shows that the earth is stationary. They thought that, if the earth moved while the stone was falling, the stone would have been "left behind." Objects would fall in a
1769:
364:
theorizing altogether. A more common interpretation is that 'anything goes' does not represent a positive conviction of Feyerabend's but is the conclusion of a
1759:
623:
has remained one of the classic texts of 20th century philosophy of science and has been influential on subsequent philosophers of science (especially the
1779:
1659:
515:, for conflating the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification. According to this distinction, formulated by
385:" as a valuable methodological rule. Counterinduction involves developing theories that are inconsistent with currently accepted empirical
344:
contains dozens of case studies, though the majority of them are relegated to footnotes or passing remarks. The primary case study in
297:
The 4th edition, released after Feyerabend's death on the 35th anniversary of the initial book release, includes an introduction from
1794:
1764:
1623:
in John Preston, "Paul Feyerabend", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2009 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <
110:
1774:
1754:
465:
and offers only a promissory note that locomotion will eventually explain everything Aristotle's theory was able to explain.
166:
and has since become a staple reading in introduction to philosophy of science courses at undergraduate and graduate levels.
558:
461:
and, therefore, has less empirical content than Aristotle's theory. This also makes it more ad hoc, because it makes no new
1789:
1707:
644:
1630:
Paul Tibbetts, Tomas Kulka, J N Hattiangadi, "Feyerabend's 'Against Method': The Case for Methodological Pluralism",
1799:
1652:
1691:
183:
131:
1784:
1645:
1564:
Shaw, Jamie.; Bschir, Karim (2021). "Introduction: Paul Feyerabend's Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century".
1479:
Shaw, Jamie.; Bschir, Karim (2021). "Introduction: Paul Feyerabend's Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century".
723:
Shaw, Jamie.; Bschir, Karim (2021). "Introduction: Paul Feyerabend's Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century".
673:
Shaw, Jamie.; Bschir, Karim (2021). "Introduction: Paul Feyerabend's Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century".
226:
was an international best seller and, as a result, it has been translated into many languages. This includes:
158:. The work is notable in the history and philosophy of science partially due to its detailed case study of
635:
Feyerabend responded to these criticisms in several follow-up publications, many of which he collected in
562:
496:
1609:
1715:
605:
570:
453:
Galileo's hypothesis also does not follow Popper's falsificationism, which suggests that we do not use
1503:
954:
827:
776:
382:
365:
357:
293:
Chinese translation by Changzhong Zhou: Shanghai Translation Publishing House: Shanghai 1994, 269 pp.
490:
implicit in the Aristotelian worldview. Specifically, Galileo makes it seem as if his conception of
410:
406:
378:
349:
163:
155:
1699:
1624:
1275:
851:
800:
524:
58:
1519:
970:
843:
792:
587:
319:
151:
105:
1546:
1511:
1267:
1210:
962:
878:
835:
784:
516:
458:
1668:
624:
491:
147:
40:
549:) (regardless of how long they've been degenerating for). Feyerabend uses the example of
413:. Moreover, Galileo did not provide arguments to justify his contention but instead used
1507:
1494:
Shaw, Jamie (2017). "Was Feyerabend an Anarchist? The Structure(s) of 'Anything Goes'".
958:
945:
Shaw, Jamie (2020). "Was Feyerabend an Anarchist? The Structure(s) of 'Anything Goes'".
831:
818:
Shaw, Jamie (2020). "The Revolt Against Rationalism: Feyerabend's Critical Philosophy".
780:
767:
Shaw, Jamie (2020). "The Revolt Against Rationalism: Feyerabend's Critical Philosophy".
479:
1068:
Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, M. Radner and S. Winokur (Eds)
1748:
1620:
855:
804:
508:
450:
diurnal rotation on its axis and the existing evidence suggested that it was false.
1733:
1066:
Feyerabend, Paul. "Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge".
483:
204:
62:
1537:
Naess, Arne (1975). "Why Not Science for Anarchists too? A Reply to Feyerabend".
663:
Feyerabend, Paul. Against Method. 4th ed., New York, NY: Verso Books, 2010, p. 1.
482:, although the notion of absolute space was not made explicit and coherent until
1515:
1201:
Andersson, Gunnar (1991). "The tower experiment and the copernican revolution".
966:
839:
788:
520:
462:
442:
328:
298:
217:
72:
1550:
1214:
613:
609:
414:
437:. To correct for these mistakes, Galileo introduces new evidence through his
882:
643:, leading him to accuse them of illiteracy and a lack of competence. In his
550:
438:
434:
361:
97:
93:
26:
1523:
974:
847:
796:
566:
557:
as a theory that was degenerating in the 19th century as a result of the
474:
386:
246:
Contra o método: Esboça de una teoria anárquica da teoria do conhecimento
738:
1279:
554:
402:
260:
Contre la methode: Esquisse d'une théorie anarchiste de la connaissance
232:
Wider den Methodenzwang: Skizze einer anarchistischen Erkenntnistheorie
174:
159:
1617:(sic) (4_3_Hanson.pdf) in order to get the complete set of footnotes.
1258:
Power, J.E. (1970). "Henry More and Isaac Newton on absolute space".
546:
511:
criticizes Feyerabend's earlier work, including the paper edition of
454:
244:
Portuguese translation by Octanny S. da Mota and Leonidas Hegenberg:
239:
In strijd met de methode: Aanzet tot een anarchistische kennistheorie
1271:
1637:
446:
430:
421:
267:
Contro il metodo: Abbozzo di una teoria anarchica della conscenza
869:
Feyerabend, Paul (1977). "Changing Patterns of Reconstruction".
426:
281:
Hoho eno chosen: Kagakuteki sozo to chi no anakizumu, Shin'yosha
1641:
639:. He was extremely frustrated by the quality of the reviews of
574:
provides methodological rules that do not need to be followed.
258:
French translation by Baudouin Jurdant and Agnès Schlumberger:
1625:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2009/entries/feyerabend/
690:
688:
686:
684:
199:
in 1968 and it was originally released as a long paper in the
20:
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
896:
Shaw, Jamie (2022). "On the Very Idea of Pursuitworthiness".
230:
German translation by Hermann Vetter (revised and enlarged):
143:
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
331:
that should guide scientific practices. The German title of
253:
Ned med metodologin! Skiss till en anarkistisk kunskapsteori
1310:
Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology
248:, Livraria Francisco Alves: Rio de Janeiro 1977, 487 pp.
565:
but was then vindicated in the early 20th century with
350:
Galileo's hypothesis that the earth rotates on its axis
288:
Yönteme Hayır: Bir Anarşist Bilgi Kuramının Ana Hatları
1384:
1382:
1366:
1364:
708:
Hacking, Ian. "Introduction to the Fourth Edition".
616:, who had sympathies for epistemological anarchism.
1726:
1675:
1634:
7:3 (1977), 265–275. DOI 10.1177/004839317700700306
1496:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
1308:Feigl, Herbert (1970). "The Orthodox of Theories".
947:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
820:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
769:
Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A
154:on the grounds that any such method would restrict
126:
116:
104:
88:
78:
68:
54:
46:
36:
1580:Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend
1203:International Studies in the Philosophy of Science
1061:
1059:
696:Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend
146:is a 1975 book by Austrian philosopher of science
871:The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science
898:Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science
201:Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science
1653:
327:is 'rationalism', or the view that there are
8:
19:
1593:Feyerabend: Philosophy, Science and Society
1582:, University of Chicago Press, 1995, p. 147
917:Feyerabend: Philosophy, Science and Society
698:, University of Chicago Press, 1995, p. 139
586:Feyerabend provides numerous criticisms of
234:, Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main 1976, 443 pp.
1660:
1646:
1638:
25:
18:
1566:Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays
1481:Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays
725:Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays
675:Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays
255:, Raben and Sjogren: Zenit 1977, 326 pp.
656:
356:Feyerabend's thought where he abandons
269:, Feltrinelli: Milan 1979, viii+262 pp.
191:Publication, Translations, and Editions
318:is that there is no such thing as the
251:Swedish translation by Thomas Brante:
1770:Contemporary philosophical literature
559:Zermelo-Poincaré recurrence objection
265:Italian translation by Libero Sosio:
7:
272:Spanish translation by Diego Ribes:
563:Loschmidt’s reversibility objection
504:Discovery/justification distinction
286:Turkish translation by Ahmet İnam:
276:, Tecnos: Madrid 1981, xvii+319 pp.
1760:Books about the history of science
1615:A Picture Theory of Theory Meaning
207:, who originally planned to write
14:
1632:Philosophy of the Social Sciences
203:series in 1970. At the behest of
1780:Philosophy of science literature
237:Dutch translation by Hein Kray:
1260:Journal of the History of Ideas
739:"The Works of P. K. Feyerabend"
1:
411:Aristotelian theory of motion
290:, Ara: Istanbul 1989, 325 pp.
1464:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1449:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1434:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1419:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1404:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1389:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1371:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1353:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1338:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1323:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1293:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1243:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1228:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1186:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1171:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1156:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1141:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1126:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1111:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1096:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1081:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
1048:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1033:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1018:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
1003:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
988:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1993).
934:(1 ed.). pp. xvii.
930:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
919:. Polity Press. p. 174.
752:Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975).
262:, Seuil: Paris 1979, 350 pp.
241:, Meppel: Boom 1977, 375 pp.
16:1975 book by Paul Feyerabend
1516:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.06.002
967:10.1016/j.shpsa.2017.06.002
840:10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.05.007
789:10.1016/j.shpsa.2019.05.007
527:. Feyerabend's response in
1816:
1468:(3 ed.). p. 253.
1453:(3 ed.). p. 161.
1438:(1 ed.). p. 219.
1423:(1 ed.). p. 211.
1408:(1 ed.). p. 205.
1393:(1 ed.). p. 202.
1375:(1 ed.). p. 186.
1357:(1 ed.). p. 185.
1342:(1 ed.). p. 183.
1327:(3 ed.). p. 149.
1160:(3 ed.). p. 122.
1145:(3 ed.). p. 108.
1130:(1 ed.). p. 122.
1115:(1 ed.). p. 115.
1085:(1 ed.). p. 113.
599:The immediate reaction to
397:The primary case study in
383:induction by falsification
31:Cover of the first edition
1692:Science in a Free Society
1551:10.1080/00201747508601759
1297:(3 ed.). p. 65.
1247:(1 ed.). p. 55.
1232:(1 ed.). p. 45.
1215:10.1080/02698599108573386
1190:(1 ed.). p. 48.
1175:(1 ed.). p. 50.
1100:(3 ed.). p. 79.
1052:(3 ed.). p. 61.
1037:(3 ed.). p. 58.
1022:(3 ed.). p. 21.
1007:(3 ed.). p. 23.
992:(3 ed.). p. 20.
756:(1 ed.). p. 12.
637:Science in a Free Society
407:earth rotates on its axis
310:Epistemological anarchism
195:Feyerabend began writing
184:Science in a Free Society
164:earth rotates on its axis
132:Science in a Free Society
24:
1795:Criticism of rationalism
1765:Books by Paul Feyerabend
283:: Tokyo 1981, 13+438 pp.
274:Tratado contra el método
433:when measured with the
405:'s hypothesis that the
337:Wider den Methodenzwang
181:included passages from
162:'s hypothesis that the
1775:English-language books
1755:1975 non-fiction books
1621:Discussion of the book
915:Preston, John (1997).
314:The primary thesis of
279:Japanese translation:
1716:Conquest of Abundance
883:10.1093/bjps/28.4.351
606:Pyrrhonian skepticism
571:statistical mechanics
540:The first edition of
177:." Later editions of
1790:Criticism of science
588:scientific education
582:Scientific education
536:Criticism of Lakatos
366:reductio ad absurdum
1508:2017SHPSA..64...11S
959:2017SHPSA..64...11S
832:2020SHPSA..80..110S
781:2020SHPSA..80..110S
595:Scholarly reception
422:theory of the tides
156:scientific progress
21:
1700:Farewell to Reason
569:'s development of
525:logical empiricism
393:Galileo case study
59:History of science
1800:Verso Books books
1742:
1741:
1578:Paul Feyerabend,
694:Paul Feyerabend,
455:ad hoc hypotheses
320:scientific method
152:scientific method
139:
138:
1807:
1662:
1655:
1648:
1639:
1596:
1589:
1583:
1576:
1570:
1569:
1561:
1555:
1554:
1534:
1528:
1527:
1491:
1485:
1484:
1476:
1470:
1469:
1461:
1455:
1454:
1446:
1440:
1439:
1431:
1425:
1424:
1416:
1410:
1409:
1401:
1395:
1394:
1386:
1377:
1376:
1368:
1359:
1358:
1350:
1344:
1343:
1335:
1329:
1328:
1320:
1314:
1313:
1305:
1299:
1298:
1290:
1284:
1283:
1255:
1249:
1248:
1240:
1234:
1233:
1225:
1219:
1218:
1198:
1192:
1191:
1183:
1177:
1176:
1168:
1162:
1161:
1153:
1147:
1146:
1138:
1132:
1131:
1123:
1117:
1116:
1108:
1102:
1101:
1093:
1087:
1086:
1078:
1072:
1071:
1063:
1054:
1053:
1045:
1039:
1038:
1030:
1024:
1023:
1015:
1009:
1008:
1000:
994:
993:
985:
979:
978:
942:
936:
935:
927:
921:
920:
912:
906:
905:
893:
887:
886:
866:
860:
859:
815:
809:
808:
764:
758:
757:
749:
743:
742:
735:
729:
728:
720:
714:
713:
705:
699:
692:
679:
678:
670:
664:
661:
517:Hans Reichenbach
372:Counterinduction
127:Followed by
117:Preceded by
80:Publication date
29:
22:
1815:
1814:
1810:
1809:
1808:
1806:
1805:
1804:
1785:Science studies
1745:
1744:
1743:
1738:
1722:
1671:
1669:Paul Feyerabend
1666:
1605:
1603:Further reading
1600:
1599:
1591:Preston, John,
1590:
1586:
1577:
1573:
1563:
1562:
1558:
1536:
1535:
1531:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1478:
1477:
1473:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1448:
1447:
1443:
1433:
1432:
1428:
1418:
1417:
1413:
1403:
1402:
1398:
1388:
1387:
1380:
1370:
1369:
1362:
1352:
1351:
1347:
1337:
1336:
1332:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1307:
1306:
1302:
1292:
1291:
1287:
1272:10.2307/2708552
1257:
1256:
1252:
1242:
1241:
1237:
1227:
1226:
1222:
1200:
1199:
1195:
1185:
1184:
1180:
1170:
1169:
1165:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1140:
1139:
1135:
1125:
1124:
1120:
1110:
1109:
1105:
1095:
1094:
1090:
1080:
1079:
1075:
1065:
1064:
1057:
1047:
1046:
1042:
1032:
1031:
1027:
1017:
1016:
1012:
1002:
1001:
997:
987:
986:
982:
944:
943:
939:
929:
928:
924:
914:
913:
909:
895:
894:
890:
868:
867:
863:
817:
816:
812:
766:
765:
761:
751:
750:
746:
737:
736:
732:
722:
721:
717:
707:
706:
702:
693:
682:
672:
671:
667:
662:
658:
653:
633:
625:Stanford School
597:
584:
538:
506:
492:relative motion
395:
374:
312:
307:
211:in contrast to
193:
148:Paul Feyerabend
89:Media type
81:
61:
41:Paul Feyerabend
32:
17:
12:
11:
5:
1813:
1811:
1803:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1787:
1782:
1777:
1772:
1767:
1762:
1757:
1747:
1746:
1740:
1739:
1737:
1736:
1730:
1728:
1724:
1723:
1721:
1720:
1712:
1704:
1696:
1688:
1684:Against Method
1679:
1677:
1673:
1672:
1667:
1665:
1664:
1657:
1650:
1642:
1636:
1635:
1628:
1618:
1604:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1584:
1571:
1556:
1545:(2): 183–194.
1529:
1486:
1471:
1466:Against Method
1456:
1451:Against Method
1441:
1436:Against Method
1426:
1421:Against Method
1411:
1406:Against Method
1396:
1391:Against Method
1378:
1373:Against Method
1360:
1355:Against Method
1345:
1340:Against Method
1330:
1325:Against Method
1315:
1300:
1295:Against Method
1285:
1266:(2): 289–296.
1250:
1245:Against Method
1235:
1230:Against Method
1220:
1209:(2): 143–152.
1193:
1188:Against Method
1178:
1173:Against Method
1163:
1158:Against Method
1148:
1143:Against Method
1133:
1128:Against Method
1118:
1113:Against Method
1103:
1098:Against Method
1088:
1083:Against Method
1073:
1055:
1050:Against Method
1040:
1035:Against Method
1025:
1020:Against Method
1010:
1005:Against Method
995:
990:Against Method
980:
937:
932:Against Method
922:
907:
888:
877:(3): 351–369.
861:
810:
759:
754:Against Method
744:
730:
715:
710:Against Method
700:
680:
665:
655:
654:
652:
649:
641:Against Method
632:
629:
621:Against Method
619:Despite this,
601:Against Method
596:
593:
583:
580:
542:Against Method
537:
534:
529:Against Method
513:Against Method
505:
502:
480:absolute space
399:Against Method
394:
391:
373:
370:
346:Against Method
342:Against Method
333:Against Method
329:rational rules
325:Against Method
316:Against Method
311:
308:
306:
303:
295:
294:
291:
284:
277:
270:
263:
256:
249:
242:
235:
224:Against Method
213:Against Method
197:Against Method
192:
189:
179:Against Method
170:Against Method
137:
136:
128:
124:
123:
118:
114:
113:
108:
102:
101:
90:
86:
85:
82:
79:
76:
75:
73:New Left Books
70:
66:
65:
56:
52:
51:
48:
44:
43:
38:
34:
33:
30:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1812:
1801:
1798:
1796:
1793:
1791:
1788:
1786:
1783:
1781:
1778:
1776:
1773:
1771:
1768:
1766:
1763:
1761:
1758:
1756:
1753:
1752:
1750:
1735:
1732:
1731:
1729:
1727:Miscellaneous
1725:
1718:
1717:
1713:
1710:
1709:
1705:
1702:
1701:
1697:
1694:
1693:
1689:
1686:
1685:
1681:
1680:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1663:
1658:
1656:
1651:
1649:
1644:
1643:
1640:
1633:
1629:
1626:
1622:
1619:
1616:
1612:
1607:
1606:
1602:
1594:
1588:
1585:
1581:
1575:
1572:
1567:
1560:
1557:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1540:
1533:
1530:
1525:
1521:
1517:
1513:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1490:
1487:
1482:
1475:
1472:
1467:
1460:
1457:
1452:
1445:
1442:
1437:
1430:
1427:
1422:
1415:
1412:
1407:
1400:
1397:
1392:
1385:
1383:
1379:
1374:
1367:
1365:
1361:
1356:
1349:
1346:
1341:
1334:
1331:
1326:
1319:
1316:
1311:
1304:
1301:
1296:
1289:
1286:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1269:
1265:
1261:
1254:
1251:
1246:
1239:
1236:
1231:
1224:
1221:
1216:
1212:
1208:
1204:
1197:
1194:
1189:
1182:
1179:
1174:
1167:
1164:
1159:
1152:
1149:
1144:
1137:
1134:
1129:
1122:
1119:
1114:
1107:
1104:
1099:
1092:
1089:
1084:
1077:
1074:
1069:
1062:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1044:
1041:
1036:
1029:
1026:
1021:
1014:
1011:
1006:
999:
996:
991:
984:
981:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
952:
948:
941:
938:
933:
926:
923:
918:
911:
908:
903:
899:
892:
889:
884:
880:
876:
872:
865:
862:
857:
853:
849:
845:
841:
837:
833:
829:
825:
821:
814:
811:
806:
802:
798:
794:
790:
786:
782:
778:
774:
770:
763:
760:
755:
748:
745:
740:
734:
731:
726:
719:
716:
711:
704:
701:
697:
691:
689:
687:
685:
681:
676:
669:
666:
660:
657:
650:
648:
646:
645:autobiography
642:
638:
630:
628:
626:
622:
617:
615:
611:
607:
602:
594:
592:
589:
581:
579:
575:
572:
568:
564:
560:
556:
552:
548:
543:
535:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
509:Herbert Feigl
503:
501:
498:
493:
487:
485:
481:
476:
470:
466:
464:
460:
456:
451:
448:
444:
443:convex lenses
440:
436:
432:
428:
423:
418:
416:
412:
408:
404:
400:
392:
390:
388:
384:
380:
371:
369:
367:
363:
359:
353:
351:
347:
343:
338:
334:
330:
326:
321:
317:
309:
304:
302:
300:
292:
289:
285:
282:
278:
275:
271:
268:
264:
261:
257:
254:
250:
247:
243:
240:
236:
233:
229:
228:
227:
225:
221:
219:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
190:
188:
186:
185:
180:
176:
171:
167:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
144:
135:
133:
129:
125:
122:
119:
115:
112:
111:0-902308-91-2
109:
107:
103:
99:
95:
91:
87:
83:
77:
74:
71:
67:
64:
60:
57:
53:
49:
45:
42:
39:
35:
28:
23:
1734:Kraft Circle
1714:
1708:Killing Time
1706:
1698:
1690:
1683:
1682:
1631:
1614:
1592:
1587:
1579:
1574:
1565:
1559:
1542:
1538:
1532:
1499:
1495:
1489:
1480:
1474:
1465:
1459:
1450:
1444:
1435:
1429:
1420:
1414:
1405:
1399:
1390:
1372:
1354:
1348:
1339:
1333:
1324:
1318:
1309:
1303:
1294:
1288:
1263:
1259:
1253:
1244:
1238:
1229:
1223:
1206:
1202:
1196:
1187:
1181:
1172:
1166:
1157:
1151:
1142:
1136:
1127:
1121:
1112:
1106:
1097:
1091:
1082:
1076:
1067:
1049:
1043:
1034:
1028:
1019:
1013:
1004:
998:
989:
983:
950:
946:
940:
931:
925:
916:
910:
901:
897:
891:
874:
870:
864:
823:
819:
813:
772:
768:
762:
753:
747:
733:
724:
718:
709:
703:
695:
674:
668:
659:
640:
636:
634:
620:
618:
600:
598:
585:
576:
541:
539:
528:
512:
507:
488:
471:
467:
452:
419:
398:
396:
375:
354:
345:
341:
336:
332:
324:
315:
313:
296:
287:
280:
273:
266:
259:
252:
245:
238:
231:
223:
222:
212:
208:
200:
196:
194:
182:
178:
169:
168:
142:
141:
140:
130:
120:
63:Epistemology
775:: 110–122.
521:Karl Popper
463:predictions
379:inductivism
360:as well as
299:Ian Hacking
218:Verso Books
1749:Categories
1611:'Download'
651:References
614:Arne Naess
610:relativism
459:locomotion
415:propaganda
209:For Method
953:: 11–20.
856:182010729
805:182010729
631:Aftermath
551:Boltzmann
497:anamnēsis
439:telescope
435:naked eye
362:normative
358:pluralism
121:N/A
98:Paperback
94:Hardcover
69:Publisher
1524:29042018
975:29042018
848:32383668
797:32383668
567:Einstein
475:parabola
387:evidence
55:Subjects
47:Language
1539:Inquiry
1504:Bibcode
1280:2708552
955:Bibcode
828:Bibcode
826:: 113.
777:Bibcode
555:atomism
403:Galileo
305:Content
205:Lakatos
175:collage
160:Galileo
92:Print (
50:English
1719:(1999)
1711:(1994)
1703:(1987)
1695:(1978)
1687:(1975)
1595:, p. 7
1522:
1502:: 18.
1278:
973:
904:: 105.
854:
846:
803:
795:
712:: vii.
547:ad hoc
484:Newton
134:
37:Author
1676:Books
1276:JSTOR
1070:: 55.
852:S2CID
801:S2CID
447:Padua
431:Venus
381:and "
1627:>
1568:: 2.
1520:PMID
1483:: 4.
1312:: 4.
971:PMID
844:PMID
793:PMID
727:: 6.
677:: 1.
561:and
519:and
429:and
427:Mars
106:ISBN
96:and
84:1975
1547:doi
1512:doi
1268:doi
1211:doi
963:doi
879:doi
836:doi
785:doi
627:).
608:or
553:'s
401:is
348:is
1751::
1543:18
1541:.
1518:.
1510:.
1500:64
1498:.
1381:^
1363:^
1274:.
1264:31
1262:.
1205:.
1058:^
969:.
961:.
951:64
949:.
902:19
900:.
875:28
873:.
850:.
842:.
834:.
824:80
822:.
799:.
791:.
783:.
773:80
771:.
683:^
486:.
417:.
352:.
335:,
301:.
187:.
1661:e
1654:t
1647:v
1553:.
1549::
1526:.
1514::
1506::
1282:.
1270::
1217:.
1213::
1207:5
977:.
965::
957::
885:.
881::
858:.
838::
830::
807:.
787::
779::
741:.
100:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
