Against Method
Reading Feyerabend is much like the experience of seeing a libertarian and a philsopher discuss Ayn Rand. The libertarian, who has not read much else besides Rand, asks earnestly about what the philsopher thinks of Ayn Rand. The Philsosopher tells the libertarian that they havent read Rand. The libertarian looks about as shocked. The Philosopher tries to get the point across that it’s not really considered philosophy and so there isn’t much use for reading Rand.
Reading Feyerabend is not unlike this. Popper is the domineering spirit of modern science. Scientists in particular love to adore him. On one hand you Popper, this great defender of all that is scientific and against him is pseudo science and witch-craft. But the scientist, who lives their life in the shadow of Popper, that encounters feyerabend or other philosophers of science might be left wondering how things could be so different.
Feyerabend tries to make the point that there is no difference between science and other forms of knowledge. The criterion of demarcation is thrown away. To be clear he isnt just out after Popper. Feyerabend looks clearly at all these classic examples of scientific progress. One that were used to show how science was virtuous in its own right above all other systems of thinking. He attacks the heroes like Nassim Taleb attacks lowbies praising bitcoin.
Feyerabend tries to show that the rules and methods of what makes science science are rarely ever followed where there has been any major scientific breakthrough. He starts with some of the scientists near and dear to our hearts and shows them as charlatans or at least shows them to be more a bunch of misfits in the church of science.
Galileo's tower argument
He starts with Galileo. The backdrop here is that he is used as the model example of overthrowing the aristotelian idea of science. Aristotle, the favourite of the Church was said to be shown as wrong by Galileo. Aristotles general idea was that things had a natural place. All things wished to return to their natural place. So things which tended towards the ground were heading there again. Things like the clouds were in their natural place, or at least closer to it. The textbook example of the ball falling is meant to show that some things fall faster than others, like a feather. So there must be something contradictory in the system aristotle put forward.
Criticisms of galileo start with the ball and the tower example. The tower example was used by followers of aristotle to refute the movement of the earth, that is, that the earth was stationary. If the earth was moving, you would see the ball land in some distance beyond the area directly where it wa released. So because it doesn’t do this, then it shows that the earth is stationary. However the argument put forward by Galileo doesnt use observation and experiment in the same way as we think it should in the scientific methods of today.
Galileo doesnt use observation or evidence. Instead he focusses on an ad hoc argument. He uses the example of an argument concerning balls going up or down a slope and also by one that is horizontal. He gets to the point that the tower and the ball share the same horizontal plane. So they stay with each other. This is what explains the ball landing beneath the tower. The problem in this is that it is not using the methods we are familar with. As Feyerabend puts it:
Copernicus, the telescope and a superior sense born of trial and error
This gets at some of the central points of feyerabend. That scientific advancements can come from areas which are essentially metaphysical.
The view of copernicus was that the motions of the planets were different from the motion of the stars. The copernican theory predicted that Mars and Venus Should change in size, however that size would not be visible through the naked eye. Telescopes are needed to show this. Feyerabend makes an argument that the telescope was used to support the copernican theory, but there was no evidence given as to why the telescope would even give an acurrate picture of the sky in the first place. While Galileo is attributed as the inventor of the telescope, this is not a very good reasons for beliveing his accounts. Galileo probably didn’t understand optics very well. Feyerabend believed that Kepler had a much better understanding. What seems to be the case is that Galileo proceeded according to trial and error. But how could this be used in the context in science. If you’ve seen before how mirrors and lens can distort images, how can be take it for granted that Galileos telescope was accurately telling us anything about the distance. It may work for objects in the near distance. But the arguments are not the same on Earth as they are in space. Or when they are decieved or distorted in the way of the telescope.
Feyerabend argues that failures of the scientific method to accomodate Galileo are evidence of a failrure in general to distinguish between science and any other forms of knowledge.