Feyerabend

1
Feyerabend

• November 24, 2008

2
Paul Feyerabend1924-1994
3
Feyerabend's 1st Argument    

• 1. If empiricism is the correct method for
  science, then it decides the Galileo case
  correctly.
• 2. Empiricism does not decide the case correctly.
• --------------------------------------------------
  ----------------------
• 3. Thus, empiricism is not the correct method for
  science.
• Terms
• - Galileo case
• - Empiricism

4
Feyerabend's 1st Argument Generalized    

• 1. If some method for science is correct, then it
  will decide all major cases correctly.
• 2. No method for science decides all major cases
  correctly.
• --------------------------------------------------
  --------------------------
• 3. Thus, there is no correct method for science.
• How could one respond to this?

5
Feyerabend's 2nd Argument

• 1. If a method for science does not correctly
  decide the major cases, then it may go wrong.
• 2. No method for science decides all the major
  cases correctly.
• --------------------------------------------------
  ------------------------------- 
• 3. Thus, every proposed method for science may go
  wrong.
• 4. If every proposed method may go wrong, then
  science may profit from going against the method.
• --------------------------------------------------
  ------------------------------- 
• 5. Thus, science may profit from going against
  the method.
• 6. If science may profit from going against the
  method, then it is advisable to let ones
  inclinations go against the method in any
  circumstances.
• --------------------------------------------------
  ------------------------------- 
• 7. Thus, it is advisable to let ones
  inclinations go against reason in any
  circumstances

6
Feyerabend's 2nd Argument

• 1. If a method for science does not correctly
  decide the major cases, then it may go wrong.
• 2. No method for science decides all the major
  cases correctly.
• --------------------------------------------------
  ------------------------------- 
• 3. Thus, every proposed method for science may go
  wrong.
• 4. If every proposed method may go wrong, then
  science may profit from going against the method.
• --------------------------------------------------
  ------------------------------- 
• 5. Thus, science may profit from going against
  the method.
• 6. If science may profit from going against the
  method, then it is advisable to let ones
  inclinations go against the method in any
  circumstances.
• --------------------------------------------------
  ------------------------------- 
• 7. Thus, it is advisable to let ones
  inclinations go against reason in any
  circumstances

7
Godfrey-Smith's Criticism

• A. Reject 4 6 Just because a method may go
  wrong, it doesn't mean that we should
  never follow it.
• Example Investing one's money in a diversified
  portfolio.
• B. Reject 6 Just because deviation from a
  method may have good consequences, it doesn't
  mean that we should always deviate from the
  method.
• Example Running a red light.

8
A Comparison

• Sextus Empiricus 160-210 AD
•     Pyrrhonian Skepticism
• Making claims or just stirring things up?
• Even if the skeptic goes too far, he
  does identify a problem.
• Even if Feyerabend goes too far, he does
  identify a problem.
• Another similarity
• Aristocles in admonishing us to have no
  opinion, the skeptics at the same time bid us
  to form an opinion, and in saying that men ought
  to make no statement they make a statement
  themselves and though they require you to agree
  with no one, they command you to believe
  themselves 

9
Positive Proposal

• Feyerabend's Proposal Anything goes. The
  preferred method is no method.
•     "Let a hundred flowers blossom."
• Objection You say that no method is the
  preferred method. But that is self-undermining.
• Responses 
• 1. Rephrase proposal No method but lack of
  method.
• 2. "Anything goes" is not a method to be
  followed, but rather a claim about how inquiry
  should go.

10
Positive Proposal

• Feyerabend's Proposal Anything goes.
• Objection How do we get rid of the dead ends,
  and the failed proposals?
• Response We don't.
• Objection But what happens when it is time to
  act?
• Response "Does this mean that we cannot act at
  all? It does not. But it means that while acting
  we have to try to realize as much of the freedom
  I have recommended so that our actions may be
  corrected in the light of the ideas we get while
  increasing our freedom." 

11
Action and Feyerabend's Proposal

• "Does this mean that we cannot act at all? It
  does not. But it means that while acting we have
  to try to realize as much of the freedom I have
  recommended so that our actions may be corrected
  in the light of the ideas we get while increasing
  our freedom." 
• Example
• We need to build a bridge across a deep canyon to
  get water to the farmers who are in the midst of
  a drought. 
• First Why think that the solution is water?
  Sure, some scientists say so, but there are
  others who say that we need to pray, or offer
  human sacrifices, or do rain dances, or
• Second Which idea do we use for building the
  bridge?

12
Conclusion

• Complete restriction on the investigation and
  pursuit of new ideas is harmful.
• Complete freedom to investigate and pursue new
  ideas can also be harmful. 
• Laudan's Proposal 
• Level of problem-solving power (PSP).
• Rate of increase of problem-solving power (PSP).
• Accept ideas with the highest level of PSP.
• Pursue ideas with the highest rate of increase of
  PSP.