Tratado Contra El Metodo by Paul K Feyerabend, , available at Book Depository with free delivery worldwide. Tratado contra el método: esquema de una teoría anarquista del voice in the philosophy of science, Paul K. Feyerabend was born and educated in Vienna. Paul Karl Feyerabend was an Austrian-born philosopher of science best known for his work as a professor of philosophy at the University of California, Berkeley, .
|Published (Last):||6 April 2012|
|PDF File Size:||4.88 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.54 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Feyerabend’s argument centers on the privileged position afforded to science in largely secular, modern nations, a position he considers unfounded and, taken to logical conclusion, dehumanizing. One of the worst ideas ever put forth. Product details Paperback Publisher: His anti-positivist arguments are made with care and humor.
This is the philosophy of the court jester, not the consigliere, and I suspect Feyerabend would embrace that metaphor. Feyerabend then chose Popper as his supervisor instead, and went to study at the London School of Economics in He forgets and changes his mind often, he writes. Where I happen to disagree is when he takes this to its logical extreme.
For example, parents should be able to determine the ideological context of their children’s education, instead of having limited options because of scientific standards. Oct 09, Matt rated it really liked it Shelves: ComiXology Thousands of Digital Comics.
Science is ‘pluralistic’ in that it relies in mult Against Method is a unsystematic book which doesn’t always posit an argument so much as ask a lot of questions.
I honestly would read more by him. Genolier contrra, VaudSwitzerland.
In this way, scientific pluralism improves the critical power of science. Humans are generally quite defensive about their core beliefs and unwilling to accept direct criticism on them. Behavioralism Post-behavioralism Critical rationalism Criticism of science Epistemology anarchism idealism nihilism pluralism realism Holism Instrumentalism Modernism Naturalism in literature Nomothetic—idiographic distinction Objectivity in science Operationalism Phenomenalism Philosophy of science Deductive-nomological model Ramsey sentence Sense-data theory Qualitative research Relationship between religion and science Sociology Social science Philosophy Structural functionalism Structuralism Structuration theory.
Combining all of the arguments I’ve mentioned, Feyerabend concludes that Galileo would never have succeeded in proving his theory if he were alive today. Hence, that theory can be said to have “an unfair advantage”. Feyerabend became famous for his purportedly anarchistic view of science and his rejection of the existence of universal methodological rules.
Contra o Metodo: Paul Feyerabend: : Books
Feyerband explains how this actually happened and his claim is that the idea that science is this rational enterprise that gives us more and more a view of objective reality is false. Lacking Lakatos’s counter-arguments as balance, Feyerabend here reads as more provocative and idealistic than he may otherwise intend, and I believe this is important to realize before tackling his case. I am doing my best to get with your book. He certainly has the courage of his convictions in taking his positions to their logical extremes, arguing that rationality is just one way of looking at the world, which is not necessarily the best way, and that it may sometimes be in the best interests of human society and the advancement of knowledge to have politicians interfere with science.
Follow the Author
Geocentrismand by and large become unreasonable, nonsensical, and add to the deconstructional foreplay of scientific brainwashing.
I love how Feyerabend shows that there are different valid approaches for doing great science and, in general, for solving problems and advancing knowledge.
No keywords specified fix it. Mainly the book is about promoting epistemological anarchism which is a sort of methodological feyerabnd. Which facts, metodi are we meant to discard? Apropos that, Feyerabend points out that Kepler’s optics were too complex for anybody at the time and that Galileo probably had no idea why the telescope worked but just got lucky in making it work. Below are my notes while reading.
And that is sort of the gist of things. But when theories are conflicting with most of the facts in their domains, providing minimal utility, and clashing with very well corroborated theories they are right to be rejected.
Tratado Contra El Metodo : Paul K Feyerabend :
Towards a twenty-first century anarchist theory and praxis for science and technology”. Maybe he decided after the reception of the book. Ckntra that phenomenon as a start, I think how I can prove or disprove it – find one way to prove it – and write the paper. What Feyerabend has done is similar to what many philosophers do when presented with writing a book: