Epistemological anarchism of P. Feurabend

If the development of science is determined by a lot of different outer (i. e. depending on not the knowledge itself) factors and doesn’t differ principally from the development of other branches of human activity, the question arises, whether the science has any advantage before these other branches (other forms of human cognitive activity). Different answers were given. Thus the Austrian and English philosopher P. Feurabend, for example, asserted that the science is the only myth of the 20th century, one myth in the line of others.

His arguments are the following. In compliance with the Kuhn-Feurabend thesis the science isn’t compatible with other forms of cognitive activity such as religion, magic, the proper myth, art, occultism etc. Everyone of these forms has its own sphere of using not intersecting with the spheres of others, its own approaches and methods. The adherents of the advantage of science, Feurabend goes on, argue that only the science is resulting and the other forms are not. But actually it isn’t so. For every form is also resulting in its own sphere. For the same reason not only methods and approaches but even results of these different forms are not compatible with each other. And thus there are no criteria for the comparison or recognition of some one form’s priority before the others. Therefore all the form of cognitive activity ought to be recognized equal in their rights before each other. The advantage of science exists only for those who have made their choice in favor of science beforehand.

The adherents of science may speak also that the science is the single form of rational creativity and that’s what its decisive advantage consists in. But the science isn’t rational, argues Feurabend, at least it’s rational not more than other forms of cognition. He illustrates the irrational character of science and its development with numerous instances. The especially interesting among them is the case of Galileo, with whose name the affirmation of geliocentrism in the new time science is connected. The factors, thanks to which Galileo got a victory in the historic perspective, were, says Feurabend, purely irrational. They were the using of the usual Italian language instead of Latin (the language of the time science and scientists society), the direct propaganda of his ideas (weakly compatible with that and our time scientists ethics) etc. Galileo, as it was demonstrated by some modern historians of science, was a full dilettante in his time science and therefore his statements sounded as an absolute nonsense for the time qualified scholars. But he wasn’t confused with it and applied to the people similar to himself, to the selfsame dilettantes, who ardently protested against old ideas and thirsted new ones. Namely it conditioned the success for Galileo from the point of history. The fact that the Earth really turns around the Sun and not on the contrary was only no more than a lucky chance. Thus the science, asserts Feurabend, is the purely irrational enterprise as well as any other form of cognitive activity. The moving engine of its development is the dilettantes similar to Galileo. As it’s spoken, all men know it’s impossible but an ignoramus, who doesn’t know it, appears and it turns out to be possible. And no rational criteria are here.

Feurabend put also an example, when during the Second World War there was a surgeon in the American Navy, who set to the most hopeless cases (from which other surgeons refused, knowing it’s impossible), committed surgery operations and so saved lives to many seamen. After the war he was introduced to the official reward but during the preparing corresponding documents it turned out he had had neither surgeon certificate nor even a medical diploma.

The last argument of the adherents of the science advantage is the place and role of the science in the life of modern society. That if the science had no advantage, it shouldn’t have occupied such an important place in our life. But it isn’t convincing also, asserted Feurabend. For the science has occupied such position only thanks to the corresponding politics directed namely on the support of the science. It’s made through the system of education. Without official education, which is scientific in its base, nobody can succeed in life. The latter has lifted the science onto the level much higher than it would be in another case. Every child in the civilized society is drummed with different sciences foundations for many years. It makes it loyal towards namely the scientific world outlook and not to the other. The official exams are some sort of tests on the loyalty to the scientific outlook. The modern civilized society is totalitarian in this matter. In the really free society everyone (or at least the parents, if it concerns children) ought to have the real right for free choice of any education form or any outlook, he wants. The state must provide this right. Analyze I. Lakatos' conception and Kuhn ─ Feurabend's thesis, give arguments pro and contra them.

Control questions and exercises

1. Analyze Kuhn's conception of the science development. What occurs with the facts that do not keep within the frameworks of a present paradigma? When and why do scientifical revolutions take place?

2. Analyze St. Toulmin's conception about the struggle of scientific ideas population for their existing and intellectual selection, point out its strong and weak sides.

3. Give arguments for and/or against the Feurabend's viewpoint on the science as on the myth of 20th century.

Date: 2014-12-21; view: 1185