Emilie Hudson

995974094
March 29, 2011
HPS250 Essay Proposal

For my final essay, I would like to explore Feyerabend’s controversial position on the scientific
method.

For my thesis, I will posit that he is correct in putting forth the notion that there is no unchanging
and universal scientific method.

• I also think that he needs to account for the fact that, although there are no definite rules
governing science, some scientists need some sort of general guidelines set out for them
in regards to their practices. Although I think that ‘anything goes’ is an interesting idea,
I wonder if as much scientific progress would have transpired over the ages if there were
NO rules. But maybe I am reading him wrong. I am still developing my ideas on what he
is saying.

• Does my previous paragraph mean that I actually think Feyerabend is wrong? For the
purpose of this paper, I would like to agree with him.

Feyerabend states that there should be no objective scientific method going into the future.
Putting strict regulations on how the discipline is conducted and why certain theories are
explored is extremely detrimental to science. Without freedom in science (within certain moral
and ethical limits, of course), there will be no true progress.

• I would like to explore this idea a little bit, but am not sure if I will have the space in my
paper.

More important, though, is the notion that there has never been a universal and unchanging
scientific method. This idea opposes the core belief – that the scientific method is the root of
science – of nearly every single scientist, philosopher and science enthusiast who lived before
(and even after) Feyerabend. However, his theory of epistemological anarchism is extremely
compelling in terms of history and logic.

Historically: he brings up several examples of revolutionary scientific theories that completely

defied any scientific method yet influenced the scientific landscape in an indelible way.
Furthermore, he dispels some myths about the methodologies of famous scientists – whereas
previously they were thought to have been strict adherents to the scientific method, Feyerabend
disseminates these notions and reveals their true approaches to science.
Logically: Feyerabend investigates theories put forth by other philosophers of science, including
his friend Lakatos and his academic supervisor Popper. These philosophers believed that a
scientific method was critical (though Lakatos was a bit less restrictive with his MSRP). He
objected to the demarcation problem, the consistency criterion, falsificationism,
incommensurability and the MSRP. Through his objections, he was able to bolster his own view.

• The ‘logical’ section would be the largest chunk of my essay. Ideally, I would like to
choose two philosophers that Feyerabend contested and use his refutations as the meat
of my defense. However, I am not sure which two should be explored. Suggestions?

After this, I would like to spend approximately 500 words on one or two objections of
Feyerabend, and then conclude the paper.

Potential References

Andersson, G. Criticism and the History of Science. E.J. Brill. The Netherlands. 1994. Pg 53-67.

Feyerabend, P. Against Method. Verso. 1993.

Feyerabend, P. Killing Time: the Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. The University of Chicago
Press. 1995.

Godfrey-Smith, P. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. The

University of Chicago Press. 2003.

Lakatos, I. and Feyerabend, P. For and Against Method. The University of Chicago Press. 1999.