A classic of the Philosophy of Science which challenges the idea that scientific progress and discovery are based on methodical investigation and unbroken chains of logic - the setting up of an hypothesis and systematic attempts at knocking it down with evidence. Rather, he shows that many breakthroughs are made often as much by chance or accident, counter-logical leaps, trial and error, the creative subconscious, together with a whole assortment of other non-methodical forces (though for all that, often underpinned nonetheless variously by genius, insight, persistence, ambition, and verification).

A number of examples and arguments from the work of Gallileo, as well as other scientists support the claims of this "Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge" over the work of Popper and those who give a more staid account of the scientific enterprise.

Originally written to be a dialogue with another piece proposing counter-arguments from his sparring-partner Imre Lakatos, which was not produced due to his untimely death (Letters between them have however been published elsewhere). It is difficult to read in places, but worth the effort.

Recommended for anyone with an interest in the philosophy of science, or who works in science. Anything Goes. ( )

In many ways, this is quite a magnificent book. It is not an easy read, and in the next few days I will write a more detailed review.
It is not an easy book to read, and there were times when I wondered if he would ever move beyond Aristotle and Galileo.

However, once you get into the second half of the book, Paul Feyerabend started to pull all the threads together. While he did not examine how the process has worked in the 20th century, and this is a shame, he demonstrated how scientific progress is not always as methodical as it seems to be!

At the end, he spelled out some of his own beliefs, and this raised the book to a higher dimension than I had initially thought possible. It is not a book for the faint of heart but stay with it and you will be rewarded. ( )

QBB-1

FG-6

One reason for scientist’s distrust of rhetoric is Paul Feyerabend's “Epistemological Anarchism”. Feyerabend, reportedly developed this view after discovering that his acting skills honed in his earlier life enabled him to win philosophical arguments regardless of which side he was arguing for.

The trouble with that is not just that scientists aren't good at rhetoric, or aren't trained in it, but that we are actively encultured to believe that good rhetoric is actively immoral.

When an argument is won or lost of the basis of who is the best rhetorician, then the truth is immaterial to which way the argument goes - and we couldn't have that - the wrong argument must always loose, whoever presents it and the correct one win. Of course the implicit (but false) belief here is that if the facts are presented, unadorned by any form of persuasion, the truth will always win out.

To be fair, this belief is also often shared by the public - just look at the distrust of lawyers - the best lawyers can win an argument for which side they are assigned to, and the public distrust this.

Of course, these are all fair points. But yet lawyers continue to 'nefariously' win the arguments they're assigned to, and politicians continue to garner votes on their abilities to "win hearts and minds". Science communicators, of necessity, need to get in on this.

I don't think it's a false belief "that if facts are presented, unadorned by any form of persuasion, the truth will always win out." I believe in both a universal standard of truth and 'the ideal speech situation'. The trouble is precisely that it is an ideal. No one has perfect powers of reasoning and it is impossible for facts to be presented unadorned by any form of persuasion. Unfortunately, power is present in all argument. It can even be present in the assigning of 'facts'.

Science communicators need to acknowledge this unavoidably imperfect state of affairs and use rhetoric for the right reason. ( )