Bureaucrats, Comment administrators, editor, Interface administrators, Administrators (Semantic MediaWiki), Curators (Semantic MediaWiki), Suppressors, Administrators, Widget editors
11,019
edits
Changes
m
</div> == Main |Major Contributions to the Philosophy of Scientific Change ===== Feyerabend on Dynamic Methods ===
== |Related Articles == Topics== Notes == BarseghyanMethod, Hakob. The Laws Role of Sociocultural Factors in Scientific Change. Springer, 2015. Feyerabend, Paul. Problems of Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981. Feyerabend, Paul, John Preston, Gonzalo Munévar, and David Lamb. The Worst Enemy of Science?: Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Godfrey-Smith, Peter. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2003. |Page Status== Authors ==Needs EditingJacqueline Sereda, 2015}}
no edit summary
{{Author|First Name=Paul |Last Name=Feyerabend|DOB Era=CE|DOB Year=1924|DOB Month=January|DOB Day=13|DOB Approximate=No|DOD Era=CE|DOD Year=1994|DOD Month=February|DOD Day=11|DOD Approximate=No|Brief=an Austrian-born American philosopher of science famous for rejecting the existence of a fixed and universal scientific method and proposing allegedly anarchistic/dadaistic view of science|Summary=Feyerabend is accurately referred to has been described as “the "the wild man of twentieth century philosophy of science”science".[[CiteRef::Godfrey-Smith (2003)|p. 102]] 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 tenants in tenets of both [[Thomas Kuhn|Kuhn]]’s [[Kuhn (1962a)|''Structure'' ]] and Feyerabend’s [[Feyerabend (1975a)|''Against Method'']]".[[CiteRef::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 ==<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed"> 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.
Rudolf Carnap, the Father of Logical Positivism, believed that scientific theories cannot be proven, but that they can have different probabilities. There are three main requirements to the notion of probabilism:
[[Imre Lakatos]] built his views in regard to scientific progress based on the belief that the growth of knowledge is best determined within the framework of his "research programmes". He believed that Popper was on the right track about ‘empirical content', but he doesn’t see that scientists actually appraise entire ‘research programmes’ rather than individual theories.
==== In response of Rudolf Carnap ====
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 response to Imre Lakatos ====
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 programmesprogrammes’,’ 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 programmeprogramme’,’ and argues that “ad hoc” "ad hoc" modifications have often been considered progressive.
For instance, in 1543, Copernicus’ astronomical theory would become part of the ‘Heliocentric Research Programme.’ The theory claimed that all planets in our solar system revolve around the central sun (called a "hard core" part of the theory) and that the orbits of the planets are circular (an auxiliary hypothesis to the theory). In 1609, Kepler proposed a modification to the auxiliary hypothesis (he did not touch the hard core) of the Heliocentric Research Programme, suggesting that planets orbited in ellipses rather than perfect circles. Feyerabend questioned whether this modification was progressive or regressive because it decreased the empirical content, and in effect claims it was an ''ad hoc '' modification. Feyerabend shows the Copernican version as having been more restrictive because it predicted a specific type of ellipse (the circle), which ultimately gave the Copernican circle a higher level of empirical content than the Keplerian ellipse. Yet philosophers of science like Lakatos would consider Kepler’s proposition to be a progressive modification.
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.
=== Feyerabend on Scientific Progress ===
The problem Feyerabend now faced was such: without an “unchangeable method of science” we are no longer in a position to tell which theory is the best one. We are left with differing, changeable methods (with their own respective rules of appraisal and different theories and evidence). This realization is why Feyeraband agreed with Thomas Kuhn and his notion of Scientific Revolutions, for Kuhn had already established that each paradigm comes with its own methods and produces its own evidence.
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.
|Criticism== Criticisms & New Directions == Feyerabend’s views and propositions subsequently led other philosophers to consider theories of scientific change that take the Dynamic Method Thesis into account. Below are examples that give insight into what the field of HPS was like after Feyerabend.
Larry Laudan is one example of how philosophers of science were trying to come up with different theories of scientific change that do not utilize a ‘fixed/static method.’ Taking the Dynamic Method into account, Laudan initially creates the ‘hierarchical model,’ which preserves rationality in science by having fixed values rather than methods. Ultimately, he presents a ‘reticulated model’ where there are new/modified rules about how theories, methods and values affect one another, while still preserving rationality in science.
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.