A controversial and influential voice in the philosophy of science, Paul K. Feyerabend was born and educated in Vienna. After military service during World War. Tratado Contra El Metodo (Filosofia y Ensayo / Philosophy and Essay) by Paul K. Feyerabend at – ISBN – ISBN Tratado contra el metodo by Paul K. Feyerabend at – ISBN – ISBN – Softcover.
|Published (Last):||11 January 2008|
|PDF File Size:||5.92 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||4.98 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Namely, when he states that there is no one scientific method, and therefore there is no scientific method– it’s a little more complex than that. Being rational is all the craze nowadays. Why would I believe in some device that no one could explain the contrz behind it and didn’t agree with the laws of physics and all my empirical evidence? Instead of the close connection between ideas of rationality and scientific method on which many thinkers would base their understanding of science on, Feyerabend veyerabend out contradictory and irrational ideas, to his mind not just part of science but at its very core.
No trivia or quizzes yet. These positions are made explicit here, and those who take for granted the objectivity and certainty of science will find little comfort. We often reject theories and ideas just like we reject people — they either don’t make the cut due to some personal inclination, or they are competitors for the same social capital. Or how about having the FDA start endorsing homeopathy, voodoo, and witchcraft for dealing with medicinal concerns?
Has very little to do with anarchism. Which chimera do you fund with the hope of making, say, teleportation a reality? From that point on, mastery begins when we start to release ourselves from technique in order to be more appropriate to whatever situation we find ourselves in, simply because technique is metpdo pedagogical tool, and its rigid organization will make certain acts impossible because they are incommensurable with that technique.
Tratado Contra El Metodo : Paul K Feyerabend :
One of the worst ideas ever put forth. Reason is often overruled, if not eliminated, in favor of these other agencies. Science alone [this is sarcasm, here] gives us a useful astronomy, an effective medicine, a trustworthy technology. It’s something to behold, I say.
Read, highlight, and take notes, across web, tablet, and phone. 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 mdtodo be respected. Divorcing them from their stories discards a great deal of important information. Feyerabend attacks falsification theories quite adamantly, and it should be known that falsifying a theory is no easy task.
Tratado Contra El Metodo
Paul Feyerabend’s acclaimed work, which has contributed greatly to this new emphasis, shows the deficiencies of some widespread ideas about the nature of knowledge. 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”. He discusses the ways in which new theories by definition violate reason, ignore or distort facts and observations as understood by the current paradigm, and essentially bootstrap themselves into a position of greater empirical content and, ultimately, scientific legitimacy.
It does provide vital space to every new theory but it still doesn’t show how a scientist can choose the new or the old theory, since the old decaying theory is basically at the same state with a new ad hoc theory because it can always be revitalized with a new discovery. metod
I cannot stop praising his book, because there is so much in here. Feyerabend also adds that Galileo approached Copernicus’ theory in such a way that he ignored the potential facts which could threaten its validity.
What this means is that the principles of critical rationalism and logical positivism—both with their claims of precision, avoidance of ad hoc hypotheses, mutual consistencies, and clearance of falsifications—do not give an adequate account for how science has actually developed in the past. I have eyes, thank you. After all, aren’t we better now? To carry conviction, modern scientific reasoning is expected to be couched in mathematical terms, even if new mathematical ideas have to be introduced to express it.
Instead, he believes that our educational system should let the kids do and believe whatever they want and teach the dominant theories as historical theories that just happen to be popular right now.
O wise Zen Master, please don’t hit me again. It does this in a civil and well-argued manner without the usual “Show me the evidence!!!
This approach challenges science’s unassailable claim to the purveyor of all knowledge. It seems that this singular case shows that we have to be ready to change our whole worldview at any moment and the methodology of our science has to provide a way to allow this. The strengths of opponents and weaknesses of the ccontra are lost and what feyerabene had to be qualified and carefully argued as an “enemy theory” is now taken for granted and may even be taken as platitude.
Arguments like this– many fiercely anti-hierarchical New Left arguments, for that matter, fall into this same category– were well and good in the days of massive state-sponsored research by both the Pwul and the Soviets. This is a challenging book to review. He does use examples other than this one, but they are not particularly convincing and often trivial several optical illusions among them.