Product Description

Modern philosophy of science has paid great attention to the understanding of scientific 'practice', in contrast to concentration on scientific 'method'. Paul Feyerabend's acclaimed work, which has contributed greatly to this new emphasis, shows the deficiencies of some widespread ideas about the nature of knowledge. He argues that the only feasible explanations of scientific successes are historical explanations, and that anarchism must now replace rationalism in the theory of knowledge. The third edition of this classic text contains a new preface and additional reflections at various points in which the author takes account both of recent debates on science and on the impact of scientific products and practices on the human community. While disavowing populism or relativism, Feyerabend continues to insist that the voice of the inexpert must be heard. Thus many environmental perils were first identified by non-experts against prevailing assumptions in the scientific community. Feyerabend's challenging reassessment of scientific claims and understandings are as pungent and timely as ever.

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #99955 in Books
• Published on: 1993-08-13
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Paperback
• 279 pages

Review
""Against Method is morder than a book: it is an event."" Archives de Philosphie ""A brilliant polemic"" New Scientist ""Ad evestating attack on the claims of philosophy to legislate for scientific practice."" New Society

About the Author
Paul Feyerabend, Professor of Philosophy at UC, Berkley, and Professor of the Philosphy of Science at te Federal Institute of technology at Zurich, died in 1994. His recent books include Philosophical Papers and Farewell to Reason.

Customer Reviews

A wonderful polemical critique of scientific reductionism
Anyone who expects an academic, theory building and hence myopic interpretation of history, especially in the context of scientific discovery and the nature of scientific fact and laws, would be well-advised to look elsewhere.

This book is a humorous, multi-sided and relentless attack on accepted notions and interpretations of consistency and progress, achieved through a single method (such as rationality or logic), in the area of human knowledge. Feyerabend denies method supremacy over contextual and meaning rich subjective thinking, and marshals the facts of history to establish the lack of any single method or well-defined body (such as science) in the growth of human knowledge.

What Howard Zinn did to conventional history with "A People's History of the United States", Feyerabend here accomplishes with regards to the history of science and rationalism. In doing so, he opens the door not for sloppy thinking, but for colorful and context rich thought and expression.

Blow your mind
This book changed the way I looked at science. Although I am a hardline rationalist, I can't help but notice how often the intellectuals are wrong and ignorant, normal people are right when scientific issues of public concern are discussed. This book thinks about why, and what should be done about it.

This book is not, however, a populist work. Intellectually it pulls no punches.

An essential polemic on science/society
It is unfair and inaccurate to criticise Against Method on the grounds that it propounds a relativist approach to science. It is essentially an extremely interesting, and entertaining, polemic in which Feyerabend attempts to shake up our complacency about science, method and the interaction of science and society. His analysis of Galileo is fascinating (as is his later ironic defence of the anti-Galileo authorities in "Farewell to Reason"), but he would be the first, I believe, to say that the reader should think and research the issue for themself, not sit back and take his word for it.

This is a book to make you think, and to provoke you to keep going. In fact Amazon is right - read it alongside Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (And, though he clearly hated the man, you might even have to read some Karl Popper, just to get the other side of the argument.)