CONTRA EL METODO PAUL FEYERABEND PDF
A controversial and influential voice in the philosophy of science, Paul K. Feyerabend was born and educated in Vienna. After military service during World War. Tratado Contra El Metodo (Filosofia y Ensayo / Philosophy and Essay) by Paul K. Feyerabend at – ISBN – ISBN Tratado contra el metodo by Paul K. Feyerabend at – ISBN – ISBN – Softcover.
|Published (Last):||12 February 2015|
|PDF File Size:||6.42 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.57 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
They start to wonder that if everything we know might be wrong and only by messing around do they begin to come up with a ppaul theory.
Science is ‘pluralistic’ in that it relies in mult Against Method is a unsystematic book which doesn’t always posit an argument so much as ask a lot of questions. Instead of the close connection between ideas of rationality and scientific method on which many thinkers would base their understanding of science on, Feyera Originally published on my blog here in December The methods that philosophers of science come up with are not compatible with what really happened historically, which means that if we adhered to them we should have kept, for example, the geocentric system.
As a consequence, propagandists like Galileo fare very well. Theories, say, like general and special relativity which affect the overthrow of a comprehensive and well-entrenched point-of-view, like Newtonian mechanics, and take over after its demise, are initially restricted to a fairly narrow domain of facts.
Today, Galileo is considered a scientific icon but at that time his theories were considered incomplete, to say the least. Secondly, few if any practising scientists today would cite Galileo as a paradigm for scientific reasoning. Myths work and explain the world in a good enough way, but they are not facts.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge
But I have great respect for Feyerabend as a thinker and researcher, and reading him is a bit like having a good intellectual sparring partner. Society will be improved immensely! Schools do not teach this: To solidify his point, Feyerabend takes a basic problem—the problem of the planets at the time of Plato.
Feyerabend disputes this by denying that there are facts that are available independent of the theories. This basically means that whichever theory comes first wins because it sets the terms and the events. Basically, if Feyerabend’s portrayal of Galileo is true, he was a sort of fanatic who went head-on into a storm of shit he couldn’t completely confirm having only his faith in Copernicus to keep him warm.
I have read and enjoye This was a great book that got me thinking about a lot of things. He argues that there are basic, fundamental limitations on human knowledge which necessitate that facts be constructed from theories and not vice versa, and that this means that new problems can only be solved when given total freedom from the constraints of the dominant norms and theories. Stop giving tax dollars to scientifically-minded institutions like the National Institute of Health, effectively abolishing it altogether?
O wise Zen Master, please don’t hit me again. In science, you never “arrive” at your destination. Those who back “science” often declare it the absolute monarch of knowledge, place it atop an unassailable throne, and condemn all who ref Truth and meaning are perhaps two of the most polarizing issues one can write about. Finally, there was a very interesting analysis of the difference between contrs archaic and the classical Greece after the 7th century BC based on the Homeric poems and their art.
Feyerabend intended this book as the initial salvo in megodo he and fellow philosopher of science Imre Lakatos had hoped to be an on-going exchange, until the latter’s untimely death ended that possibility. I am doing my best to get with your book. We are taught this at an early age and we don’t question telescopes and pul mathematics and methods astronomers use because it all seems like common sense.
Nov 02, Brandon rated it really liked it. He doesn’t wish to get into the logistics of what is reasonable.
Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge by Paul Karl Feyerabend
There’s no set of unwavering and indubitable rules or methods that science actually utilizes in practice; Scientific theories are often incommensurable in that they are composed of fundamentally different concepts that are not reducible to a common measure; Science as a whole has unduly been given a special status in society that it does not deserve, and it’s just another ideology and should consequently be separated from the state like religion. Most of the book is one extended case study of how Galileo’s heliocentric model of the solar system replaced the idea of the earth at the center.
Feyerabend says that this would not have been possible had Galileo stuck with the old method, and that Galileo had to use evidence that the old theories would not even have considered. Now, I’m not going to say that I agree or disagree with Feyerabend.
Ultimately, consistency is how we make sense of a localization for the purposes of ordinance organization. Propagandists Relativist polemic against scientific monopolies.
File:Feyerabend Paul Tratado contra el – Monoskop
He discusses the ways in which new theories by definition violate reason, ignore or distort facts and observations as understood ketodo the current paradigm, and essentially bootstrap themselves into a position of greater empirical content and, ultimately, scientific legitimacy. All ad hoc hypotheses are strictly forbidden. To ask other readers questions about Against Methodplease sign up.
We must learn the basics to define what the modality is. Perhaps the point he was trying to make was there is no Archimedean point for us to survey which tradition is better than which. For me as a scientist reading Against Method fejerabend freeing. He argues that the only feasible explanations of scienti Modern philosophy of science has paid great attention to the understanding of scientific ‘practice’, in contrast to concentration on scientific ‘method’.
It is erroneous in fact to consider taking any steps back whatsoever to re-evaluate scientific facts: Feyerabend believes that this oppressively logical way of thinking dehumanizes us. Someone like Slavoj Conttra who I am also reading at this time would possibly say that ideology always trumps factual evidence to the contrary.
Open Preview See a Problem? But then suddenly, the next 5 pages are crystal clear and genius! Some theories prove utilitarian, others not so much. What a breath of fresh air!