Against Method

Fayerabend asserts that scientists have no particular claims on truth. To him, the rationality of science does not really exist and the special status and prestige of scientists are based on their own claims to objective truth. Progress in science is because scientists break every principle in the rationalists' rule book and adopt the principle that "anything goes." Individual theories are not consistent with one another, and since there is no single "scientific method," scientific success flows not only from rational arguments, but also from a mixture of subterfuge, rhetoric, conjecture, politics and propaganda
The history of science is not based on facts and their conclusion. It contains:

• ideas
• interpretation of facts
• problems resulting from different interpretations
  
• mistake, etc

Scientific facts are ideational (11). The road to scientific education i. defines research domain ii. separates it from others iii. gives it its own logic iv. train in that logic v. purge the trainees of all sense of personhood, even language so as to get the bare facts.

Chapter 1
Method viz historical research presents new paradigms in the scientific revolution resulted from (a) scientists breaking with the set of methodologies (b) refusing to be bound by set methods (14), which is a prerequisite to the growth of knowledge. Interest plays a bigger role in the growth of knowledge (17). Idea + action; what comes first? Action may help solidify the idea better.

ideas-->other ideas-->new instruments -->evidence
-->new research-->..........................-->new theories
All resulting in new ideologies that can provide independent arguments to account for some of it (17). Anarchism helps to achieve progress in any one of the sense (18). Note:
1. you cannot have a fixed method/theory of rationale

Chapter 2
Testing empiricism
This can be done through facts, experimental results, and data supporting the theory. What about the counter rule? When the hypothesis is inconsistent with accepted theories and when the hypotheses are inconsistent with established facts. How to obtain evidence that refutes a theory "use alternative, when refutations have discredited the orthodox theory (20-21). Develop a pluralistic methodology (21) compare ideas and other ideas NOT experience. In the process, discard wholly, or in part; accept others, build/cumulative a body of knowledge that consists of "mutually incompatible alternatives" (21)--> an articulation of theories that helps form man's consciousness.
1. Break the cycle
2. use a new conceptual system that clashes with the norm; use a counter induction.
Bottom line: why against method? All methodologies have their limits (23).

Chapter 3
why the counter rule? [use hypothesis, inconsistent with well-established theories]
Precipitate real progress and not merely arbitrary change (26). Walls are created by the consistency condition (25-26) stick with what you know. So: invent and articulate alternatives then produce refuting facts; use rational inquiry...pluralism of ideas and forms of life.
Doing, insinuating and assumes a great deal of ignorance in follow up by example that illustrate the contention.

Chapter 4
Overcoming the status quo in science
1. adopt a pluralistic methodology (33)
2. compare theories with other theories not with experience/data/facts
3. tries to improve not discard view that appear wavy.
Sources of alternative theories (see bottom pp33-34)
Past, future, myths. prejudices, fantasies
Scientific chauvinism exemplified in many ways. Advocates pluralism of theories and metaphysical view for methodology as essential to a humanitarian outlook.

Chapter 5
"No single theory ever agrees with the known facts, objects, domain (34)
1. Qualitative failures
2. quantitative adjustments
Theories with qualitative defects need not to be rejected, e.g. Newton's theory of colors (44) and classical mechanics (46)
50: Method demands that a theory be judged by experience, and be rejected if it contradicts accepted basic statements.
Fayerabend: reject for these demands are useless. New paths: Hume: theories can be derived from facts where there are no facts, no theories can be derived/
Solution: drop the demands for facts before theory. Revise methodology to include counter induction and unsupported hypotheses.
51: eliminate all rules even on the basis of falsification claim: theory may be inconsistent with evidence, not because it is incorrect, but because the evidence is contaminated, e.g. Copernican theory.
52: Evidence should never judge our theories directly.

Chapter 15
Contemporary criticisms.
Context of discovery and context of justification norms and facts/observational terms theoretical term
147: 2. Popper's critical rationalism
3. incommensurability
Fayerabend attempts to draw methodological conclusion from historical examples. In doing so, he confounds 2 distinct contexts, namely, discovery and justification. Discovery--> may be due to serendipity, it is irrational
Justification-->has to be ordered
Logical reconstruction of the conceptual structure testing of the theories
Can science advance with no strong interaction between the 2 domains.
Do scientists often go against the rules?
148: 1: they invent theories
2: contemplate the new theories in a relaxed fashion
3: make moves that go against methodological rules by:

• interpreting evidence in a manner that fits theories ideas
• eliminate differences by ad hoc procedures or
• push aside/refuse to take differences seriously

149: Method as a prescription
history as description ---these two are not boundary lines; they are temporary
methodology: what should be done
Theories may be removed for conflicting observations, which may be removed from theoretical reasons.

Learning involves both observation and theory without privileging one over the other. Experiences is developed together with theoretical assumptions not before.

150: incommensurability and rationality of science; what so the standard rational argument?
151: be able to produce rules, standards, restrictions so we can measure against irrational behavior/ Establish rules and standards of criticism. Attempts to protect from criticisms tale away from rationality.
Natural science connects criticism to experiments and observation. the content of theory is the sum total of its potential falsifiers (151)

How does critical rationalism develop?
1, Start with a problems--expectations not fulfilled/mistaken irregularity because the expected regularity is amiss.
2. Try to solve the problem by

1. inventing a theory that is relevant/falsifiable

3. Criticism of the theory put forth if done successfully, a new problem ensues it (a) explains the success of the theory (b) why it failed. A new theory articulates the old and the news (denies mistakes, makes additional predictions).
153: Facts are discovered then explained by theories. Dangers of living within the rules of critical rationalism produce monsters frowning upon personal connection between entities may harm people.
So science needs to be reformed to make it more anarchic/subjective (Kierkeguard). It is not possible to have both science as we know it and the rules of critical traditionalism. Why?
1. Ideas, practices, etc, do not start with a problem. If they start from play, should that aspect be excluded?
2. Strict falsification wipes out science--not permit it to start.
The principles of critical rationalism are:

• take falsification seriously
• increase content
• avoid ad hoc hypotheses
• be honest

Logical empiricism demands:

• -precision
• base theories on measurements
  
• avoid vague/unstable ideas

Critical rationalism gives an inadequate account of science.
Attempting to make science rational will wipe away science. The so called deviations and errors are what permit science to develop. Reason must frequently be dismissed for progress to occur.

Appendix I
Logic does not operate in science. Science is not a measure of excellence. Initial impulses (215) awareness, individual consciousness (216). How change was effected; observer questions: the details f an e.g. Hagel; traditional position, negation, synthesis. A starting place for establishing rules of thumb.
Participant question--attitude that participants have towards the intruder/
217: Pragmatic philosophy is taken where there is no way out but to conform. A pragmatist is both participants (what to do) and can observer what lends that?
Platonisms--assumes new entities, real, entities of common sense imperfect
Sophism--natural objects critical objects of mathematical unrealistic, simple minded. (219)

Platonists and ideal forms of knowledge despise existing knowledge. Value statement pertaining to science have their origin is tradition. They do not reflect individual preferences. So what the relationship between readers and practice?
222. 1: reason guides practice--it holds independent authority from practices, traditions--ideal
2: reason receives content and authority from practice.
Naturalism describes how practice works and what principles guide it.
223: the two ought work together with the practice helping to correct/improve the ideal
225: on traditions--neither good nor bad. Rationality is neither good nor bad. Does not provide an alternative to tradition. Tradition assumes desirable qualities when compared with some other so as to reveal its shortcomings (229)/

All methodologies have their limits. Idealism claims rationality to justify its actions, which makes it dogmatic and critical. The demand for content increase/drive knowledge, pushes people beyond the accepted limit.
235: Non-contradiction as a necessary condition for reason/
236: Knowledge qualitative and observatory (Aristotle). Today knowledge is quantitative and theoretical. It all depends on privilege and on the culture.

Postscript on Relativism
268: relativism as much a chimaera of absolutism

Appendix 2

the separation of science and non-science is not only artificial but also detrimental to the advancement of knowledge.
The language of observations: the absence of language does not hinder scientific inquiry

Against Method
attacks the idea that science has a single method that has stood the test of time that advances science
irrational ideas are the core of science as they are the basis upon which revolutions are built.

The method is that is that science works by collecting facts and inferring theories from them but that cannot be because theories do not result from facts in a logical sense.
falsification is not the answer as some theories are not falsifiable and have some observations that do not fit perfectly those that exist are not in agreement with the statements. every theory has flaws.
Like Kuhn, Feyerabend believed that standard logical-empiricist accounts of confirmation, theory, and other topics were quite inadequate to explain the major transitions that have occurred in the history...

Three Biographies
Kuhn's incommensurability is the relations between 2 scientific traditions separated by a scientific revolution and implies:

• a change in the problems to be addressed by theory
• change in methods and concepts
• people in different paradigms practice their trades in different worlds (152-153)

So to Kuhn, scientific discovery is not cumulative.

Fayerabend's incommensurability began with his perceived imitation in the notion of observational (154) terms applied. Incommensurability is the tie between two succeeding general scientific theories (154). Meanings and usage play as big a role in paradigm shifts as do in/observable features of the world (155). Incommensurability has a lot to do with meanings and descriptive terms of theories being "mutually inconsistent" (155).

Kuhn and Fayerabend both address the same phenomena -- a particular form of theory change with strange properties (157). Kuhn was concerned with modern physics and Aristotle 's diminished role in it. To Fayerabend, observation sentences are strongly theory dependent. Fayerabend's trigger is philosophical while Kuhn's is historical, brought about by a particular experience. A range of theories is subject to incommensurability. Underscore: Fayerabend: fundamental theories that are interpreted in particular ways --realism, e.g. Greeks,-->classical antiquity; impetus-->classical mechanics, etc.
Such theories once interpreted a specific way (realism) influence their respective objects.

could no be understood as an addition to Kuhn--wider range including small unexpected discoveries. To Kuhn "the new development the oldest" (160). New also carries new meaning shifts.