Now we’re done! (It’s time for Feyerabend) (original) (raw)

Abstract

Paul Feyerabend's essay "Against method" (1975) is rarely mentioned when scientists try to contextualise and justify their research projects. Or at least I have never come across this piece as a positive reference in a proposal submitted to me for review nor have I ever heard it referred to positively in a talk. Well, except if the writer or speaker is intent on making a difference, polemically of course. Along lines such as these: No! Of course our outstanding study doesn't believe that "anything goes", but adheres instead to correct methodological awareness! Here order prevails, so please just disburse those third-party funds, if you wouldn't mind! Feyerabend, Really? So there is no clear difference between myths and scientific theories. Science is one of the many forms of life that humans have developed, and not necessarily the best. It is loud, cheeky, expensive and striking. But in principle it is superior only in the eyes of those who have already taken a certain position or who accept the sciences without ever having tested their merits and weaknesses.[1] No wonder that Feyerabend's essay, which first version appeared in English in 1970 and was hugely successful in its time,[2] is taken off the bookshelves of university libraries merely for introductions to epistemology, as the vast number of student papers found online reveals. The reason is that Feyerabend, beyond his epistemology, presents himself in "Against method" as a "epistemological anarchist" or even as a "Dadaist"[3] and even pleads for a new laicism, a separation of science and state.[4] Well, it could be argued that the purportedly neo-liberal idea of withdrawing basic funding from higher education might even hold out the promise of fulfiling Feyerabend's anarchistic wish, as a late ironic nemesis. That, however, is certainly not what the university professor wished for, as it would have made both him and his existence impossible. And, of course, while none of us would like to be associated with this argument, it is still worth pursuing Feyerabend's approach a bit further.

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (25)

  1. Translated from the German version: Paul Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang: Against method (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986), 385.
  2. Michael Hagner, "Wider den Populismus. Paul Feyerabends dadaistische Erkenntnistheorie," Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History 14, no. 2 (2017): 369-375.
  3. Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang, 249.
  4. Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang, 385-397.
  5. Bernhard S. Cohn, "History and Anthropology. The state of play," Comparative Studies in Society and History 22, no. 2 (1980): 198-221, esp. 199-201.
  6. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1990), 305-312.
  7. Jörn Rüsen, Historische Vernunft. Grundzüge einer Historik I: Die Grundlagen der Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1983), 21-32.
  8. Siehe zuletzt klar in der Perspektive Caspar Hirschi, "Vom Nachteil der Peer Review," Merkur 72 (2018): 5- 19.
  9. Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962).
  10. To the point that he knocks the great heroes of the history of science like Galieo Galilei off their pedestals and reveals the cultural and social embedding, as well as the contingency of this scientific progress. Cf. Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang across the book. The fact that this approach does not encourage a post-factual and cynical handling of the claims of intersubjective verifiability has recently been demonstrated by Michael Hagner, "Wider den Populismus".
  11. Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang, 21.
  12. Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang, 21f.
  13. Hirschi's final creative ideas also seem strangely powerless: Hirschi, "Vom Nachteil der Peer Review," 18- 19. _____________________ Image Credits Some of the best graffiti I've ever seen, on a stop sign in Centralia, Pa. © Joseph Novak CC-BY 2.0 via Flickr. Recommended Citation Demantowsky, Marko: Now we're done! (It's time for Feyerabend). In: Public History Weekly 6 (2018) 28, DOI: dx.doi.org/10.1515/phw-2018-12517. Translated by Mark Kyburz (http://englishprojects.ch) Editorial Responsibility Moritz Hoffmann / Jan Hodel (Team Basel)
  14. Paul Feyerabends Essay "Against Method" von 1975 taucht selten auf, wenn Wissenschaftler*innen versuchen, ihr jeweiliges spezifisches Forschungsprojekt zu kontextualisieren und zu begründen. Ich meine, es als positiven Bezug in einem zu begutachtenden Antrag noch nicht gelesen, in einem Vortrag noch nie gehört zu haben.
  15. Höchstens, dass man sich polemisch abhebt, das ja. Etwa so: Nein!, die eigene tolle Studie folge natürlich keinem "Anything goes", hier herrsche korrektes Methodenbewusstsein! Hier herrsche Ordnung, her mit den Drittmitteln! Echt, Feyerabend? Webressourcen Geschichte der Gegenwart. Beiträge zur öffentlichen Debatte (letzter Zugriff 25.9.2018) Hypotheses. Blogportal für die Geistes-und Sozialwissenschaften (letzter Zugriff 25.9.2018) Public History Weekly. The International BlogJournal (letzter Zugriff 25.9.2018) _____________________
  16. Paul Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang: Against method (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1986), 385.
  17. Michael Hagner. "Wider den Populismus. Paul Feyerabends dadaistische Erkenntnistheorie," Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History 14, 2 (2017): 369-375.
  18. Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang, 249.
  19. Feyerabend, Wider den Methodenzwang, 385-397.
  20. Bernhard S. Cohn, "History and Anthropology. The state of play," Comparative Studies in Society and History 22, no. 2 (1980): 198-221, part. 199-201.
  21. Hans-Georg Gadamer, Wahrheit und Methode. Grundzüge einer philosophischen Hermeneutik (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr, 1990), 305-312.
  22. Jörn Rüsen, Historische Vernunft. Grundzüge einer Historik I: Die Grundlagen der Geschichtswissenschaft (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1983), 21-32.
  23. Siehe zuletzt klar in der Perspektive Caspar Hirschi, "Vom Nachteil der Peer Review," Merkur 72 (2018): 5- 19.
  24. Thomas S. Kuhn, Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1967).
  25. Bis dahin, dass er die großen Helden der Wissenschaftsgeschichte wie Galileo Galilei von ihrem Sockel