Against Method

I immediately liked the format of the book. Instead of short non-descriptive title chapters, he instead gives a short sentence of the main point he’s making.He also front loads a lot of his useful points. I got halfway through the book and found that to be convincing enough for my tastes.Some people might not like him swinging with hot takes right away, but I found it to be helpful since it establishes the apparent absurdity of his claims and the difficulty of defending his position.Some claims he makes:- science is essential anarchic- truth is discovered by comparison and not analysis- we should take the sophists maxim to always be striving to make the weaker argument stronger- a theory could clash with its evidence because the evidence is contaminated- No theory is consistent with all the facts. “There is no theory that is not in some trouble or other”At this point I’ll stop. I hope you get the idea. The guy is sometimes touted as a kooky anarchist. I personally don’t find anarchic philosophies endearing, and I don’t think this description does him justice.

If you are a researcher (any field), or just interested in how "science" is supposed to work, read this book. The basic principle of the author is "The only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes."Needless to say, our current system is the exact opposite of this, and Feyerabend would likely despise (and rightly so) the granting systems of NIH, or other federal organizations. The book was originally publishes in 1975, following the decades of probably the most successful medical advances (optimization of antibiotics, chemotherapy, discovery of the DNA structure, etc). Those conditions (abundant funding, absolute meritocracy, little corporate influence) were likely unimaginable for todays scientist, who mostly work on writing grants for "mechanistic" research. Did Francis Collins read Against method? Doubtful.Brilliant book, strongly recommended.

A great book - probably more timely and necessary and insightful in 2016 than when written. Feyerabend was and is obviously a "feather-rustler" of the scientific establishment - for which I am grateful to him. I have spent a lot of years being suspicious of the pious, arrogant, self-serving, omnipotent attitude of some/much of science and scientists. I have become painfully aware of how many grand proclamations and expectationshave been foiled onto humanity, especially the under-privileged, under-developed, and unwitting - only to have history show them way short of the mark and actually doing great harm to lesser populations and our Planet.For the 1st time for me, Feyerabend lays bare the follies of the scientific method, the damage it does, and the new, creative ideas it attempts to squash in the name of method - really, though, in the name of power, control, and arrogant hierarchies. I've felt that most new, good, ground-breaking science has come in spite of the method - from outliers, amateurs, radicals and radical approaches. He is right on - very focusing for me. And, with science in need of a new view of science, of people, of the planet, and a new approach - his is a refreshing and necessary effort if we are to move ahead into the real world of diversity, equality, and quality, esp. with Natuarla Systems, complex situations, and chaos - which is where the big problems facing us lie.Bravo for brave new ideas against an establishment long over-due for a "reset" and which would allow brave new proposals leading to world-changing and world-view changing results.BravoDick Pierce

Give man 1,000 years and he will discover that the Earth goes around the sun. I read this waiting for Paul to say, "to hell with science!" But he never advocated anything so destructive. And this is good because technology is so dependent on research and development. Give credit where credit is due. If we ever enter a new paradigm, it will include all that we have accumulated and discard quite a bit as well. This paradigm may never even question what we were tinkering around with in the sciences. We can only hope that technology doesn't give rise to anarchy. Wisdom of crowds will dominate and the lonely laboratory technician will send the sheep to the next stage of our evolutionary history. The method of science is sound for now and we should count our blessings that we have discovered most of what was there to be discovered. Let's hope we can find our way to prosperity, truth, and beauty.

Unlike Popper or Kuhn, Feyerabend's views just do not seem coherent to me. I am not quite clear on why he is "against method", nor how this antagonism translates into a larger picture on the theory of science.

Feyerabend is pretty good at updating books from beyond the mortal veil. Nonetheless, I am reading an older copy. It is really awesome. I agree with most other reviews. I do agree that it stronger in urging "scientists" to be less rigid with method, and that the polemic has less focus on declaring how an anarchistic science should be favored over other strategies for gaining knowledge, such as superstition, rumor, tradition, new age insights, and so on.Myself, this is helpful as I see medical / biological / health care research desperately grabbing for methodological security from the "gold standard" of the RCT, the peer-reviewed journal, the imprimatur of the "expert as in climate science lately, and so on, while ignoring and even detracting from more fruitful pursuits. Lately, commentors have gently noted this, and have gently urged more exploration of "pragmatic trials," subset analysis, post-hoc exploartional analysis, and so on. But it is vauable to have the Feyerabend viewpoint put forth strongly.Normally, I dislike reading various "critical," or "structural," or marxist evaluations of various topics, but it works here - back on Hegel's home turf of epistemology.

This book should not be reduced to one of its statements, "anything goes", because Feyerabend's argument is much more complex than that. Feyerabend tells us in a convincing way that the progress of science is made possible by people who do NOT act according to established rules and by people who put ostensibly obvious truths into question. Feyerabend was a very educated man, and his book should be read by every scientist, but also by the public at large - at last as long as we are free to think on our own.

I read this book 'to know my enemy' mainly to destroy the arguments used by my old postmodernist college teacher. As you may have figured out I originally stood in complete opposition to this book, rallying behind the likes of Alan Sokal and Richard Dawkins.However, after reading Thomas S. Kuhn's: "The structure of scientific revolutions" on paradigm theory (read this first), I felt I had to study Feyerabend's take. After doing this, I can at least concede that I have taken on board some of his relativist criticisms albeit I have done so with a large pinch/grain of salt. I am still by no means a postmodernist and as usual I stay close by to my copy of "beyond the hoax".A quick word of warning about most pre-postmodernist "dada" or any postmodernist literature, it can be very wordy at times, so to those very lost lay-men out there...watch out! I think that with a good head on your shoulders you should be able manage it while it coincides with your A levels.Also be very careful when reading this book, always approach it with a skeptical mind because it is very tempting to fall for 'woo' when it is written so well. If you feel you are falling for empty rhetoric return to your Sokal immediately.Five stars for the sheer cheek of Feyerabend!

True masterpiece

I’m not a scientist, but like anyone else on the internet, I like to pretend I could be one. I like to pretend that I know academia and what’s wrong with science more than academics do. I didn’t study any science beyond Grade 12 Chemistry. Feyerabend’s Against Method makes me feel more confident in my thoughts I could be a scientist, because what is “science?” It’s basically whatever you want.You know how Galieo fought against “the man” (evil Church) and won? You know how that proves how great “science” is? Feyerabend argues this is a lie. He was basically a troll who used every means at his disposal (including trickery and propaganda) to convince people he was right. In many ways, the Church followed “science” in saying he was wrong. They didn’t know back in the day that telescopes were good at. The image they provided was significantly distorted compared to the naked eye. It wasn’t until later when optics were studied more that this was figured out and corrected.By following methods of any capacity, we limit ourselves. We limit the ideas we can have and the explanations we can produce. We don’t know what is “right” or a “fact” now, and many people believe the case could be proven to be wrong. Consistency with the past is often a hindrance. There is many opportunities if you take up Feyerabend’s motto of “anything goes.” Have more crazy ideas."There is no idea, however ancient and absurd, that is not capable of improving our knowledge."

A bit heavy to read on the philosophy side, need some familiarity with Popper, Kant, Lenin, Marx, Hegel, Kierkigaard - get my drift, but apart from that, its pretty comprehensive review of the power and lack of power science has to explain things much less itself