Paul Feyerabend Was Against Rigidity of Methods, Not Methods
Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994), a professor of philosophy at the University of California, gained fame for his saying “anything goes.” In his book Against Method (1988) he espouses many concepts. My many years of research in the scientific method allow me to comment only on his theories about method.
In Against Method, Feyerabend says, “The idea of a method that contains firm, unchanging, and absolutely binding principles for conducting the business meets considerable difficulty when confronted with the results of historical research. We find, then, that there is not a single rule, however plausible, and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not violated at some time or other.” I believe that he is referring to all methods used by scientists, since his examples and discussions cover a wide range and are not limited to the scientific method itself. He also says,”Occasionally, the laws of scientific method, or what are thought to be the laws of scientific method by a particular writer, are even integrated into anarchism itself.” Here again it is not clear that he means the scientific method. In my research, I have found few authors who use the word “laws” in reference to the scientific method, with the exception that some refer to a final conclusion as a “theory” or “law.” Many authors discourage the use of the word “law” in favor of “theory” as the final conlcusion after using the scientific method.
Feyerabend had no basis for saying “the idea of a method that contains firm, unchanging, and absolutely binding principles for conducting the business of science.” A few authors may have claimed this, but the history of science does not indicate that “the business of science” was generally claimed to be “firm, unchanging, and absolutely binding principles.” Feyerabend is misstating or exaggerating science to support his claims against rigidity of method, which are logical, but it is illogical to be against method in general. Unfortunately, the title of the book has created the impression that Feyerabend is against the scientific method when he is really against rigidity in methods.
Conclusion
The whole of our research effort is based largely on our methods. Thus, claims against “method” as such are far-fetched.
Feyerabend’s book and claims should never be cited as support for the false claims that the scientific method doesn’t exist, that there is no one method, and that authors intend the steps and formulas for the scientific method to be rigid steps or stages rather than flexible ones.
Because of the misunderstanding and false claims that have prevailed concerning the scientific method, the writings of many authors, including Feyerabend, Kuhn, and Popper, must be read and interpreted with these misconceptions in mind.
Unfortunately, these famous men’s misunderstandings about the scientific method have influenced and guided a huge number of people toward an incorrect path or thought process.
Today all educational researchers are required to produce scientifically based research and scientifically valid research. The only way to do this is to use the scientific method.
Feyerabend will go down in history not for being against method but for stressing the need to avoid rigidity in methods and advocating that “anything goes.”
