Abstract

The purpose of the following article is to draw attention to main problems of scientific values as they were stated by Paul Feyerabend. Various philosophers and epistemologists have always tried to prove chosen principles and objectives, but only few dared to jeopardize their fundamentals. Stereotypes of searching for ultimate truth ceased to hold; however, scientific coordinates are still not qualified. Underlying ambiguities often remain unarticulated. Among those who ventured to shed light on them were the philosophers of post-positivistic branch. One of those who questioned science values in social, cultural, and philosophical approaches the most rigidly was Paul Feyerabend. By means of typical political concepts (such as ideology and propaganda) he detected basic objectives of scientists. Our main methodological tools in this research are comparative analyses of the sources and immanent critique of Feyerabend’s arguments. The scientific novelty is based on our core objective to clarify substantial obstacles for homogeneity of science. Does such homogeneity or unity exist at any level? Feyerabend’s answer is a weak “yes”. He accepts such unity only as a useful assumption or a myth. In one of his latest books, Conquest of Abundance, he calls it a “flag” for the “people doing science.” As Feyerabend diagnosed faults of relativism, instrumentalism, and realism – all of them are threatened by the same menace of being invalid to response the world “at face value” – we have to deal somehow with topics denounced by him. In conclusion, we show important implications for the creation of a specific worldview at the intersection of philosophy and science. Considering a number of negatives, in the article we elicit fruitful ideas of Feyerabend, and contextually question them without resorting to a superficial reproach.

Highlights

  • Resorting to the classical comparison of Paul Feyerabend and Thomas Kuhn, Ian Hacking once emphasized quite a catchy opposition between them

  • In The Social Construction of What? he mentions that the very idea of exposing ideology distinguishes these two

  • In case of Kuhn, it lies in unmasking; controversially, in case of Feyerabend, it implies just opposing this type of ideology and “challenging at its own level” [12, Pp. 97-98]

Read more

Summary

Філософія науки і техніки

ISSN 2227-7242 (Print), ISSN 2304-9685 (Online) Антропологічні виміри філософських досліджень, 2014, вип. 6. The purpose of the following article is to draw attention to main problems of scientific values as they were stated by Paul Feyerabend. Among those who ventured to shed light on them were the philosophers of post-positivistic branch. One of those who questioned science values in social, cultural, and philosophical approaches the most rigidly was Paul Feyerabend. The scientific novelty is based on our core objective to clarify substantial obstacles for homogeneity of science. Does such homogeneity or unity exist at any level? He accepts such unity only as a useful assumption or a myth. Feyerabend, Xenophanes, epistemological anarchism, scientific uniformity, ideology, abundance of nature

Introduction
Methodology
Main Part
Scientific novelty
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.