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

2018, Public History Weekly

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.