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):||16 November 2017|
|PDF File Size:||16.22 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||5.2 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Perhaps a tradition isn’t bad, but certainly some traditions are better than others. Alternatively, science is a bundle of current and possible procedures unified under the shared goal of understanding and predicting. All ad hoc hypotheses are strictly forbidden. Is it not possible that an objective approach that frowns upon personal connections between the entities examined will harm people, turn them into miserable, unfriendly, self-righteous mechanisms without charm or humour?
In my case with bioinformatics, I start to play around with data, and walk down paths of which don’t work. If we have a theory that turns out to be self-contradictory, it will have a difficult time surviving the the context of justification.
Want to Read saving…. I believe Feyerabend is right to point out these limitations, and that we should all take a longer pause before we feyerabeend on board with ideas that are “established” by scientific research. Where I don’t agree with Feyerabend in the slightest is his demand to split science from coontra – I can understand where he’s coming from, I guess pauk until the 80s the results of science where set in stone.
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 Finally, there was a very interesting analysis of the difference between the archaic and the classical Greece after the 7th century BC based on the Homeric poems and their art. Those who back “science” often declare it the absolute monarch of knowledge, place it atop an unassailable throne, and condemn all who refuse to bow as mentally bankrupt.
He argues that today’s science has become so rigid that no one can work outside its methodology. To view it, click here.
Sometimes, entire pages seem metod have been machine-translated from German, to which Feyerabend feyerabenc Greek and Latin quotes, and cites ten different philosophers and forgotten authors to make the confusion complete. Yet a large part of my work is playing around in an R console, looking for fun things, making pretty pictures, and drinking free coffee. But if more and more facts are discovered or constructed with the help of expectations and are later explained by theory, there is no guarantee that at any one point in time, any one scientist will ever be able to omnisciently solve, so to speak, let alone replace, every theory new or old that had been refuted with a successor.
Tratado Contra El Metodo
coontra Feyerabend doesn’t explicitly make these claims–except, I think, saying that we should teach “magic” in public schools–but they are natural consequences of his view, nonetheless. Anarchistic in his approach, Feyerabend argues that progress can only occur by separating science from the state, much in the same way we hope to separate the church from the state, because unfair influence from political forces can only serve to corrupt the procurement of new untimely facts that might be socially and politically unpopular.
Feyerbend takes a cue from Kuhn about how science progresses. The strengths of opponents and weaknesses of the idea are lost and what once had to be qualified and carefully argued as an “enemy theory” is now taken for granted and may even be taken as platitude. These positions are made explicit here, and those who take for granted the objectivity and certainty of science will find little comfort. Especially if we consider that the grouping of ‘traditional Chinese medicine’ is itself an artificial construction promoted on political grounds in the Maoist era.
On a more abstract level, one that I think Feyerabend would appreciate, is that we should approach all polemics and theories understanding that they are generated through the auspices of their own consistency and meaning. Feyerabend writes a difficult book here, but one feyerabenx is necessary.
I did not have any expectations, but now I think it is one of the most useful books I have ever read, it kind of blew my mind, and I want to illustrate a version of it with my stupid drawings. And that is sort of the gist of things. On the other hand, it was later concluded that planetary regularity was not so easy to discern.
Funding aside, how does one come up with these irrational ideas in the first feyeabend Jun 27, Ben rated it really liked it. No eBook available Amazon. We’ll be free of the corrupting influence and ideology of Science! I get some interesting results, and try to make sense of them by looking through the literature, and I finally find some biological phenomenon that might fit. May 30, Rui Coelho rated it really liked it. Basically, if Feyerabend’s portrayal of Metovo 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.
The messy range of fields we call “science” can achieve a degree of corroboration and acceptance that we can venture a tenuous claim of “certainty”, but to claim that this applies to anything baring resemblance to this hazy ideal is, at best, rosy-eyed optimism.
Quotes from Against Method: My initial impression of the book was that it was a postmodernist rant about the evil of science. Yes, it may, for a time, prove its utility in various ways, but it will never be feyeeabend of as “right” unless it can reconcile its internal contradictions.
File:Feyerabend Paul Tratado contra el – Monoskop
Basically Feyerabend shows us that knowledge is always procedural. Why should I discount them so I can start making the same mistakes again through trial and error? Often, these are the same thing. Now, I’m not going to say that I agree or disagree with Feyerabend.
This is a challenging book to review. Feyerabend persuasively argues that if anything, science is much sloppier and irrational than what its methodological, arrogant image likes to reveal.
It’s from the first that he concluded that science is basically a myth, but this conclusion is obviously disputed. I have eyes, thank you. Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. It seems clear to me that all attempts to “explain science” have, to date, been unsuccessful usefulness of these accounts is up for debate of course but none are without problems.
There’s a reason why science is successful. The appearance it had inside the water was not an illusion because that would imply a solid unifying subject I mean a human that watches feyefabend that makes judgements. This is of course, in a big way, where Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason steps in, and it is at this point that Feyerabend stops short.
The predictions then must be confirmed by experiment and explained coherently by theory i.