Changes

== Main Contributions to the Philosophy of Scientific Change ==

Feyerabend attests that logical analysis shows that there are no “pure statements of fact,” because all propositions are theory laden. Therefore, sometimes “evidence” can be wrong. He supports this claim with examples from the history of science, showing that new theories often come into being through the reinterpretation or even rejection of well-known facts. For instance, consider Aristotelian Medieval Physics, which was accepted until the end of the 17th century. According to Aristotelian Medieval Physics, it was accepted as a “pure statement of fact” that the earth has no diurnal motion. Instead, the experience of an object falling straight downward (towards the centre of the centre of the universe) suggested that the earth does not move. If the earth were indeed rotating, an object dropped from a high tower would still move towards the centre of the universe, however it would hit the ground far from the base of the tower. Since the object fell right next to the tower, the conclusion, according to Aristotelian Medieval Physics, was that the earth does not rotate.

In addition, Feyerabend states that Carnap fails to explicate the scientific method.

Feyerabend demonstrates, by using examples from the history of science, that there have been many instances where a new theory has been accepted without any confirmed novel predictions. First proposed in 1687, Newton’s four Laws (1st, 2nd, 3rd, Gravity) provided accurate predictions for a wide range of terrestrial and celestial phenomena. Notably, the theory made a ‘novel prediction’ that the Earth was oblate (meaning that the equatorial diameter was slightly greater than the polar diameter). The oblate-spheroid hypothesis, however, was not confirmed until 1740, before which time Newton’s theory was not accepted on the European continent. Nevertheless, back in Britain, Newton’s laws had been accepted and taught at British universities.

Feyerabend states that the acceptance of Newtonian physics before the confirmation of its novel predictions was a violation of Popper’s requirement for confirmed excess empirical content in theory acceptance. Feyerabend also shows through logical analysis that said requirement is only practical when two theories ‘speak the same language’ (see Kuhn’s notion of incommensurability for further information).

Lakatos prefers modifications which are in tune with the programmes’ spirit and that introduce corroborated excess empirical content. He also states that when comparing two ‘research programmes,’ progressive ones are preferable to degenerating ones. Feyerabend, again, uses examples from the history of science to explicate flaws in Lakatos’ notion of a ‘research programme,’ and argues that “ad hoc” modifications have often been considered progressive.

Feyerabend says Lakatos’ requirement of preferable research programmes has been violated in many instances because it is so unrestrictive that one can reasonably hold onto any research programme without any time limit.

Traditionally, scientific change was conceived as a process of theory change. Carnap, Popper and Lakatos all claim that there exists a “scientific method” which concerns only theories and evidence, and is immune to change.

Feyerabend’s research concerning progress without a method compelled him to propose the principle of proliferation to ‘guide’ science and answer the question of what happens to the notion of progress in science without universal and unchangeable criteria. Feyerabend’s notion of “progress through proliferation” states that new theories and methods should not replace old ones, but rather ‘proliferate’ by providing new perspectives and ways of perceiving things. He argues that new theories make it possible to see different facts and to notice things we would not otherwise notice, while different methods allow us to choose different theories and therefore enrich our overall worldview.