A reflection as to whether Lakatos' Critical Rationalism or Feyerabend's Epistemological Anarchism is more congenial to the goals and being of the Church
Great video. I’m interested though in why did Paul Feyerabend think that society had to be protected against science? I’ve recently began learning about philosophy of science. I’ve looked at the works of numerous thinkers such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos etc, however, a name that I’ve seen popping up recently is the name of Feyerabend and apparently he is extremely controversial. I wanted to know why this is the case and one of the reasons he’s supposedly considered “radical” is because of his opinion that society has to be “protected” by science. I believe this can be found in his 1978 book “Science in a Free Society.” He also defends epistemological anarchism in this book and in Against Method (1975). So, why did he think that society had to be protected against science? What are the reasons he gives for holding to this position? To me, as a newcomer to philosophy of science, this seems preposterous and absurd. This is because science has helped make the world a better place. It has extended our lives, created technology that has advanced our civilization, and modern science is seen as one of the West’s greatest achievements. Why would our society therefore need to be protected against science? Another worry I have about this position is that this can be used to defend pseudoscience and this is more dangerous than ever today (given the negative consequences of anti-vaxxers, as an example). I’m not experienced enough with Feyerabend’s philosophy of science enough, so it ultimately comes back to this question; why did he think that society had to be protected against science? and were the reasons he gave for this position actually good or are their misguided and false? Thanks.
Thanks for your questions. Before I try to address your central question, I want to make a few disclaimers: First, I wrote and posted this reflection over seven years ago, long before the Antivax movement got going to anywhere near the level it is now. Second, Feyerabend was writing several decades before this. While there has always been a segment of the community that has been skeptical about vaccinations, I do not believe it has become THIS prevalent before. Third, I myself am passionately in favor of vaccines and I got vaccinated against COVID as soon as I was eligible. Please do not let me relating Feyerabendian “devil’s advocate” views make you think that I am defending anti-vaccine attitudes. Fourth, my answer to this question is going to presuppose you are familiar with the nuanced way that Feyerabend writes and that he is often doing practical psychology just as much as philosophy of science (this is more clearly on display in his Three Dialogues on Knowledge). Feyerabend is known for making MANY claims that are, at first glance, “preposterous and absurd,” in your words. In my reflection I cited an example of someone who claimed that Feyerabend “denies that science makes progress.” This is, of course, not true. When he makes claims along these lines, he is drawing attention to the fact that many people take only a selective appraisal of science that can neglect either certain unsavory elements of scientific history or else makes evaluations based on constantly changing criteria. For example, Feyerabend might agree that science makes clear, unambiguous progress, PROVIDED that what we care about is progress in answering the questions that scientists have today and we do not care how well science answers questions we had at one point in the past. For example, we are far worse at providing an account for how phlogiston is released from combustible substances than we used to be. We might argue that this is a trivial “loss of knowledge” or indeed none at all, because we no longer believe in phlogiston. The point is that, at least sometimes, when we say that we have progressed in our knowledge, it means that we have stopped caring about some things that came to trouble us. So, to the question of why Feyerabend thinks that society ought to be “protected” from science, the reason you give for why this seems “preposterous and absurd” is actually illuminating. You included many positive things that science has achieved, and I think that Feyerabend would agree with all of them. However, you neglected to mention many other things that are ALSO caused by science. We spent much of the twentieth century worried about the possibility of nuclear annihilation, which would not have been possible without science. We find that, in the attempt to produce more and to apply scientific findings to our daily lives, the level of pollution in our world has gone up dramatically. Our incredible scientific and technological breakthroughs of communication have not solved international relations. Indeed, it may have made things worse. Because of how we often feel about science, we have a tendency to want to focus only on the positive side of things. I do not know where you stand on the issue of Christianity but, since I posted reflections from the point of view of a Christian, you know that I am a Christian. However, I am also well aware of the need to “protect” people from certain manifestations of “Christianity.” If I were to make the case that it is “preposterous and absurd” to object to Christianity because of the massive role that the church has played in preserving Western culture and values for two thousand years, about how it has championed an ethical code that is largely affirmed as good, and parts even as “self-evident,” even by those outside of the church, and about how it has led the world in the arts, someone would, rightly, object that I presented only the aspects of Christianity that everyone, or nearly everyone, would applaud. They would point out that there are many terrible things that have been done in the name of Christianity and so to portray Christian faith as an unalloyed positive is one-sided. This is meant by way of illustration. In Feyerabend’s writings, and again this is especially evident in his Three Dialogues on Knowledge, people need to be made aware of the fact that science has not always and everywhere had only a positive impact on people. There is a shadow side to science. [To be clear, someone might say that is because of bad actors abusing science, but if that argument is allowable, then we must be allowed to say that things like the Spanish Inquisition represent an abuse of Christianity and is therefore not Christianity’s fault.] Not everything that comes with the label “science” is equally good for all people. Feyerabend’s point is that people ought to be educated about science, its bad parts as well as its good parts, and allow decisions regarding science to be made by those who will be impacted by the decisions. I think that, were Feyerabend alive today, he MIGHT argue that it is precisely the failure to protect society from science that has led to the rise of the antivax movement. If society says that science is a mystery to all but practicing scientists but the rest of the word must simply take their word as to what is good and right and what is not, then the word SCIENCE becomes as tyrannical as GOD or SCRIPTURE has been at points in history. Indeed, Feyerabend at one point compares the AMA unfavorably in its authoritarian behavior to that of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. When people are told, “Don’t question things, just trust that we are telling you what is right” and then the people can see that not everything is good, it can be no surprise that people react against it. When people face the poisons in their environment that are only there because of scientific advancement and are told that science is unambiguously good, they start to wonder what else should be questioned. Feyerabend refuses to denounce what we call pseudo-science out of hand. He suggests that many of what some would consider pseudo-scientific practices could be good for human flourishing. His biggest objection is to paternalistic attitudes that say, “I know that I don’t know you, but I know what is best for you.” He sees such attitudes in educational practices that were inviting non-white students into “educational opportunities” that were, in fact, inviting them to learn to think more like white people rather than respecting and learning from those other cultures (this is in Science in a Free Society, 76ff). Of course, Feyerabend also MIGHT take a more forceful attitude toward vaccination because of the public health concern as he also affirms the need for traffic laws. However, when looking for any information about what Feyerabend might have thought about vaccination, I stumbled upon this article, written in 2020 (and therefore before the approval of COVID vaccines) that helps to articulate what epistemological pluralism might look like in a pandemic: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7734607/pdf/40656_2020_Article_353.pdf All of this being said, Feyerabend spent much more of his time criticizing dominant views rather than developing his own comprehensive approaches. This is no doubt partially due to his abhorrence of comprehensive approaches as such. It is also worth noting that, while Feyerabend would have been alive to see the impact of vaccines against things like polio, and he would have seen the effective elimination of small pox in the western world, he was born after the 1918 flu epidemic and so may not have had a situation parallel to our current one in mind. Nobody is required to agree with Feyerabend, and I am not saying either here or in my video that I entirely agree with him, but he is worth taking more seriously and being read more closely than people often do. He is the kind of philosopher that must be read carefully or else his views will quickly be distorted.
Great video. I’m interested though in why did Paul Feyerabend think that society had to be protected against science? I’ve recently began learning about philosophy of science. I’ve looked at the works of numerous thinkers such as Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos etc, however, a name that I’ve seen popping up recently is the name of Feyerabend and apparently he is extremely controversial. I wanted to know why this is the case and one of the reasons he’s supposedly considered “radical” is because of his opinion that society has to be “protected” by science. I believe this can be found in his 1978 book “Science in a Free Society.” He also defends epistemological anarchism in this book and in Against Method (1975).
So, why did he think that society had to be protected against science? What are the reasons he gives for holding to this position? To me, as a newcomer to philosophy of science, this seems preposterous and absurd. This is because science has helped make the world a better place. It has extended our lives, created technology that has advanced our civilization, and modern science is seen as one of the West’s greatest achievements. Why would our society therefore need to be protected against science? Another worry I have about this position is that this can be used to defend pseudoscience and this is more dangerous than ever today (given the negative consequences of anti-vaxxers, as an example).
I’m not experienced enough with Feyerabend’s philosophy of science enough, so it ultimately comes back to this question; why did he think that society had to be protected against science? and were the reasons he gave for this position actually good or are their misguided and false? Thanks.
Thanks for your questions. Before I try to address your central question, I want to make a few disclaimers: First, I wrote and posted this reflection over seven years ago, long before the Antivax movement got going to anywhere near the level it is now. Second, Feyerabend was writing several decades before this. While there has always been a segment of the community that has been skeptical about vaccinations, I do not believe it has become THIS prevalent before. Third, I myself am passionately in favor of vaccines and I got vaccinated against COVID as soon as I was eligible. Please do not let me relating Feyerabendian “devil’s advocate” views make you think that I am defending anti-vaccine attitudes. Fourth, my answer to this question is going to presuppose you are familiar with the nuanced way that Feyerabend writes and that he is often doing practical psychology just as much as philosophy of science (this is more clearly on display in his Three Dialogues on Knowledge).
Feyerabend is known for making MANY claims that are, at first glance, “preposterous and absurd,” in your words. In my reflection I cited an example of someone who claimed that Feyerabend “denies that science makes progress.” This is, of course, not true. When he makes claims along these lines, he is drawing attention to the fact that many people take only a selective appraisal of science that can neglect either certain unsavory elements of scientific history or else makes evaluations based on constantly changing criteria. For example, Feyerabend might agree that science makes clear, unambiguous progress, PROVIDED that what we care about is progress in answering the questions that scientists have today and we do not care how well science answers questions we had at one point in the past. For example, we are far worse at providing an account for how phlogiston is released from combustible substances than we used to be. We might argue that this is a trivial “loss of knowledge” or indeed none at all, because we no longer believe in phlogiston. The point is that, at least sometimes, when we say that we have progressed in our knowledge, it means that we have stopped caring about some things that came to trouble us.
So, to the question of why Feyerabend thinks that society ought to be “protected” from science, the reason you give for why this seems “preposterous and absurd” is actually illuminating. You included many positive things that science has achieved, and I think that Feyerabend would agree with all of them. However, you neglected to mention many other things that are ALSO caused by science. We spent much of the twentieth century worried about the possibility of nuclear annihilation, which would not have been possible without science. We find that, in the attempt to produce more and to apply scientific findings to our daily lives, the level of pollution in our world has gone up dramatically. Our incredible scientific and technological breakthroughs of communication have not solved international relations. Indeed, it may have made things worse.
Because of how we often feel about science, we have a tendency to want to focus only on the positive side of things. I do not know where you stand on the issue of Christianity but, since I posted reflections from the point of view of a Christian, you know that I am a Christian. However, I am also well aware of the need to “protect” people from certain manifestations of “Christianity.” If I were to make the case that it is “preposterous and absurd” to object to Christianity because of the massive role that the church has played in preserving Western culture and values for two thousand years, about how it has championed an ethical code that is largely affirmed as good, and parts even as “self-evident,” even by those outside of the church, and about how it has led the world in the arts, someone would, rightly, object that I presented only the aspects of Christianity that everyone, or nearly everyone, would applaud. They would point out that there are many terrible things that have been done in the name of Christianity and so to portray Christian faith as an unalloyed positive is one-sided.
This is meant by way of illustration. In Feyerabend’s writings, and again this is especially evident in his Three Dialogues on Knowledge, people need to be made aware of the fact that science has not always and everywhere had only a positive impact on people. There is a shadow side to science. [To be clear, someone might say that is because of bad actors abusing science, but if that argument is allowable, then we must be allowed to say that things like the Spanish Inquisition represent an abuse of Christianity and is therefore not Christianity’s fault.] Not everything that comes with the label “science” is equally good for all people. Feyerabend’s point is that people ought to be educated about science, its bad parts as well as its good parts, and allow decisions regarding science to be made by those who will be impacted by the decisions.
I think that, were Feyerabend alive today, he MIGHT argue that it is precisely the failure to protect society from science that has led to the rise of the antivax movement. If society says that science is a mystery to all but practicing scientists but the rest of the word must simply take their word as to what is good and right and what is not, then the word SCIENCE becomes as tyrannical as GOD or SCRIPTURE has been at points in history. Indeed, Feyerabend at one point compares the AMA unfavorably in its authoritarian behavior to that of the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages. When people are told, “Don’t question things, just trust that we are telling you what is right” and then the people can see that not everything is good, it can be no surprise that people react against it. When people face the poisons in their environment that are only there because of scientific advancement and are told that science is unambiguously good, they start to wonder what else should be questioned.
Feyerabend refuses to denounce what we call pseudo-science out of hand. He suggests that many of what some would consider pseudo-scientific practices could be good for human flourishing. His biggest objection is to paternalistic attitudes that say, “I know that I don’t know you, but I know what is best for you.” He sees such attitudes in educational practices that were inviting non-white students into “educational opportunities” that were, in fact, inviting them to learn to think more like white people rather than respecting and learning from those other cultures (this is in Science in a Free Society, 76ff).
Of course, Feyerabend also MIGHT take a more forceful attitude toward vaccination because of the public health concern as he also affirms the need for traffic laws. However, when looking for any information about what Feyerabend might have thought about vaccination, I stumbled upon this article, written in 2020 (and therefore before the approval of COVID vaccines) that helps to articulate what epistemological pluralism might look like in a pandemic: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7734607/pdf/40656_2020_Article_353.pdf
All of this being said, Feyerabend spent much more of his time criticizing dominant views rather than developing his own comprehensive approaches. This is no doubt partially due to his abhorrence of comprehensive approaches as such. It is also worth noting that, while Feyerabend would have been alive to see the impact of vaccines against things like polio, and he would have seen the effective elimination of small pox in the western world, he was born after the 1918 flu epidemic and so may not have had a situation parallel to our current one in mind.
Nobody is required to agree with Feyerabend, and I am not saying either here or in my video that I entirely agree with him, but he is worth taking more seriously and being read more closely than people often do. He is the kind of philosopher that must be read carefully or else his views will quickly be distorted.