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.

Author: Shasar Samushicage
Country: Greece
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Health and Food
Published (Last): 28 March 2017
Pages: 367
PDF File Size: 4.12 Mb
ePub File Size: 7.89 Mb
ISBN: 975-7-75399-986-8
Downloads: 86674
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Shakanris

But it’s not just dogma that he fights against. My best reading experiences are ones that give me the mstodo of well presented new ideas when I am reading, get me thinking about my own ideas in the subject area of the book and in related fields, stimulate further areas of reading and inquiry and then linger with me after I finish reading them.

My only beef is that he assumes that ideas are politically neutral, or that all ideas are equally non-neutral, which I think ignores their motivations. The deeper I went down the rabbit hole the more I started to get where Feyerabend was coming from. But then suddenly, the next metido pages are crystal clear and genius!

The other books intrigued me more, they looked much more exciting and this one was sitting beige-ly on the feyerrabend. Feyerabend continues to ramble about scientific chauvinism and whatnot, also how science is starting to turn against humanity and democracy becoming a new ideology similar to the church before it separated from the state In some cases it didn’t, although that is a completely different story.

One of the meetodo criticisms that Feyerabend levels is that all social institutions including science are in fact first and foremost, social institutions. Propagandists are, in fact, necessary for scientific progress. 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 a pedagogical tool, and its rigid organization will make certain acts impossible because they are incommensurable with feyearbend technique.

Sl can’t agree with him at all. He made people–scientists, philosophers, and laymen alike–critically examine their respective positions towards science and reevaluate their sometimes uncritical conclusions.

Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge by Paul Karl Feyerabend

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.

Feyerabend believes that in order for science to “progress” further, it is often necessary to leave the old system and start completely afresh, even if we don’t possess the necessary evidence to confirm the validity of our new approach.


Where I happen to disagree is when he takes this to its logical extreme. But this is all to set up what lies at the core of Feyerabend’s philosophy: 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.

There is a break in between how we do science and how we present it to the public – for example, the structure of a scientific publiction has absolutely nothing to do with how the actual results were obtained. How can we find a robust methodology that is compatible with the adoption of the heliocentric system, despite all the evidence to the contrary?

File:Feyerabend Paul Tratado contra el – Monoskop

Science has enveloped every part of society from jails Correctional facilities now! Lacking Lakatos’s counter-arguments as balance, Feyerabend here reads as more provocative and idealistic than he may otherwise intend, and I believe this is important to realize before tac Feyerabend intended this book as the initial salvo in what he and fellow philosopher of science Imre Lakatos had hoped to be an cintra exchange, until the latter’s untimely death ended that possibility.

First, how we actually do science has very little resemblance to how we say we do science. Theories, say, like general and special relativity which affect the overthrow of a comprehensive and well-entrenched point-of-view, like Newtonian mechanics, and take over after its demise, are initially restricted to a fairly narrow domain of facts. Galileo’s writing has a literary nature more akin to what would today be considered philosophy rather than physics the major work quoted by Feyerabend, the Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, is modelled after the Socratic dialogues of Plato.

Basically, if Feyerabend’s portrayal of Galileo is true, feyerxbend was a sort of fanatic who went head-on into a storm of shit he couldn’t completely confirm having only his faith in Copernicus to keep him warm.

After military service during World War II and further study at metovo University of London, he returned to Vienna as a lecturer at the university. He argues that theories replace people and actions with theoretical abstrations of people and actions.

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”. And stop calling me Grasshopper! Which ones do really exist? O wise Zen Master, please don’t hit me again.

But this is a very small bone to pick with a book that in almost every respect smart, original and stimulating. What remains in Against Method reads as exactly that: And that a lot of science is simply grasping in the dark. This is a challenging book to review.


Kuhn claimed that there are periods of “normal science” that are upset by revolutionary shifts. They start to wonder that if everything we know might be wrong and only by messing around do they begin to come up with a revolutionary theory. Feyerabend disputes this by denying that there are facts that are available independent of the theories.

Feyerabend became famous for his purportedly anarchistic view of science and his rejection of the existence of universal methodological rules. One thing that I don’t really get is his “tradition” theory which seems relativist he has a whole appendix defending it. But if more and more facts are discovered or constructed with the help of expectations and are later explained by metldo, there is no guarantee that at any one point in time, any one scientist will ever be able to omnisciently solve, so to speak, let alone replace, every theory new or old that had ckntra refuted with a successor.

Tratado Contra El Metodo

This makes science much more a field of play than people realize. Is it a coincidence, then, that Feyerabend, Kuhn, and De Bono are flogging the same horse at the same time? And to those who are afraid that our “progress” will stop he notes that there will always be ants that are ready to restraint themselves metood work in the strict guided program of science.

Today, it’s fairly common knowledge how the solar system works. Instead, he thinks that humans viewed themselves as subjects to forces. His argument is based on Galileo’s evidence about the Earth’s rotation and the general idea of heliocentrism.

Counterinduction sounds strangely like “a rule that remains valid under all circumstances,” no? Feyerabend is also critical of Lakatos and his “research programmes.

The problem is not science, but the way it is practiced by the scientists. There are surely ways to falsify this, but the technology does not exist or it’s a tedious, expensive and literally life-consuming work. Dec 15, Manny rated it really liked it Shelves: It does this in a civil and well-argued manner without the usual “Show me the evidence!!! Taking a radically different perspective on the aesthetics of what theory is, Feyerabend attack one of the scared cows of science and mathematics — that of consistency.

Some points I happen to agree with