Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
|DOB Approximate=No
|DOD Approximate=No
|Summary=Paul Feyerabend is accurately referred to as “the wild man of twentieth century philosophy of science”. In the 1960s and 70s, the notion of a changing or dynamic scientific method (which is scarcely refuted today) first surfaced - this was regarded as "one of the key tenets in of both [[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]]’s [[Kuhn (1962)|''Structure'']] and Feyerabend’s [[Feyerabend (19751975a)|''Against Method'']]". [[Barseghyan (2015)|p. 217]] Both philosophers of science subscribed to the point of view that there is no such thing as an unchangeable method of science (known in contemporary terms as the Static Method Thesis). Feyerabend’s anarchistic views of science are exemplified throughout his extensive works. His propositions developed into his conclusion that all science was irrational.
|Historical Context=Though Feyerabend adopted an anarchic view, there have been many other attempts to explicate the Scientific Method (a method of appraisal in light of evidence to determine which theory is better). Below are three prominent Philosophers who attempted to achieve such an explanation, and a brief description of their subjective criterion.
David Bloor, having introduced SSK (the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge), believes that theories, methods and evidence are all social constructs from which scientific change cannot be separated. He expands on this claim by stating that the process of scientific change is shaped by a vast array of social factors such as: psychology, politics, economics, and religion. The notion is that even our most fundamental theories reflect the social contexts in which they originate and function. Furthermore, he asserts that “statements of fact” are a product of social factors like negotiations, compromises, exhaustion, lack of money, personal interest, or national pride. In addition, he argues that our choice of method depends on our cultural values. Bloor concludes that the process of scientific change falls under the field of sociology and should therefore be studied as a social phenomenon.
|Related Topics=Method, Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change,
|Page Status=Needs Editing
}}
