Pandemics, policy, and pluralism: A Feyerabend-inspired perspective on COVID-19.

We analyse insufficient epistemic pluralism and associated problems in science-based policy advice during the COVID-19 pandemic drawing on specific arguments in Paul Feyerabend's philosophy. Our goal is twofold: to deepen our understanding of the epistemic shortcomings in science-based policy during the pandemic, and to assess the merits and problems of Feyerabend's arguments for epistemic pluralism as well as their relevance for policy-making. We discuss opportunities and challenges of integrating a plurality of viewpoints from within and outside science into policy advice thus contributing to discussions about normative issues concerning evidence and expertise in policy-making.

Decision-Based Epistemology: sketching a systematic framework of Feyerabend's metaphilosophy.

In this paper I defend the claim that Paul Feyerabend held a robust metaphilosophical position for most of his philosophical career. This position I call Decision-Based Epistemology and reconstruct it in terms of three key components: (1) a form of epistemic voluntarism concerning the justification of philosophical positions and (2) a behaviorist account of philosophical beliefs, which allows him (3) to cast normative arguments concerning philosophical beliefs in scientific methodology, such as realism, in terms of means-ends relations. I then introduce non-naturalist and naturalist variants of his conception of normativity, which I trace back to his mentors Viktor Kraft and Karl Popper, respectively. This distinction, introduced on the metaphilosophical level, can can be put to use to explain key changes in Feyerabend's philosophical proposals, such as the viability of his methodological argument for realism. I conclude that this Decision-Based Epistemology should be further explored by historically embedding Feyerabend's metaphilosophy in a voluntarist tradition of scientific philosophy.

Feyerabend, funding, and the freedom of science: the case of traditional Chinese medicine.

From the 1970s onwards, Feyerabend argues against the freedom of science. This will seem strange to some, as his epistemological anarchism is often taken to suggest that scientists should be free of even the most basic and obvious norms of science. His argument against the freedom of science is heavily influenced by his case study of the interference of Chinese communists in mainland China during the 1950s wherein the government forced local universities to continue researching traditional Chinese medicine rather than Western medicine. Feyerabend claims this move was justifiable and, eventually, vindicated by the resulting research which was beneficial for locals and the West at large. The purpose of this paper is to provide a comprehensive overview and analysis on Feyerabend's views on the freedom of science and his social commentary on US science funding policy that follows therefrom. This proves to be exceedingly difficult because Feyerabend's writings on the subject are filled with gaps, unnoticed tensions, and cognitive dissonance. Still, I think Feyerabend's scattered insights and the contradictions that emerge lead to an interesting microcosm of the issues contained in the freedom of science debate.

The COVID-19 pandemic: a case for epistemic pluralism in public health policy.

This paper uses the example of the COVID-19 pandemic to analyse the danger associated with insufficient epistemic pluralism in evidence-based public health policy. Drawing on certain elements in Paul Feyerabend's political philosophy of science, it discusses reasons for implementing more pluralism as well as challenges to be tackled on the way forward.

Is feyerabendian philosophy relevant for scientific knowledge development in nursing?

To revitalize nursing science, there is a need for a new approach to guide nurse scientists in addressing complex problems in health care. By applying theoretical concepts from a revolutionary philosopher of science, Paul K. Feyerabend, new nursing knowledge can be produced using creativity and pluralistic approaches. Feyerabend proposed that methods within and outside of science can produce knowledge. Despite the recognition of Feyerabendian philosophy within science, there is currently a lack of literature regarding the relevance of Feyerabendian philosophy for nursing science. We aim to (a) describe and critique Feyerabendian concepts, (b) discuss the potential application of Feyerabendian philosophy for knowledge production within gerontological nursing and (c) describe theoretical possibilities for nurse scientists in using Feyerabendian philosophy to guide nursing knowledge development. We begin by introducing Feyerabend's life and his inspirations for his theoretical concepts, epistemological anarchism, theoretical pluralism and humanitarianism, and conclude by offering suggestions of how to apply Feyerabendian philosophy in nursing research.

Skinner e feyerabend sobre o método e o papel da ciência em uma sociedade livre / Skinner y feyerabend sobre el método y el papel de la ciencia en una sociedad libre / Skinner and feyerabend on the method and the role of science in a free society

Da obra de B. F. Skinner fazem parte preocupações de ordem epistemológica, encerrando discussões sobre metodologia e critérios de verdade, e outras de ordem política e social, concernentes à relação entre ciência e sociedade. De um discurso, em alguns aspectos, coincidentes com uma forma de positivismo, Skinner passou a crítico de tendências puramente formalistas sobre o método científico, e de uma defesa do gerenciamento da sociedade por especialistas, passou a uma crítica à centralização do poder e à proposta de uma forma de organização baseada no controle face-a-face. Tratando de temas semelhantes, Paul Feyerabend desconstruiu a ideia de um método científico universal, denunciou um caráter potencialmente opressor da ciência, reclamando que o conhecimento científico não deveria ter inerente predileção sobre outras formas de conhecimento para o acesso às instituições de poder. Considerando a relevância da obra de ambos os autores para debates suscitados no âmbito da história e da filosofia das ciências, este trabalho objetiva apresentar e discutir aspectos do comportamentalismo radical, de Skinner, e do anarquismo epistemológico, de Feyerabend, que tratam de temas comuns. Conclui-se que, apesar de diferenças salientes, as duas perspectivas contêm algumas proposições convergentes e virtualmente complementares, cuja interlocução poderia ser útil a seus objetivos de busca por uma sociedade livre.

De la obra de B. F. Skinner forman parte preocupaciones epistemológicas, incluyendo discusiones sobre metodología y criterios de verdad, y políticas y sociales, sobre la relación entre ciencia y sociedad. De un discurso, en algunos aspectos, coincidente con una forma de positivismo, Skinner pasó a crítico de tendencias puramente formalistas del método científico, y de una defensa de la gestión de la sociedad por los expertos, pasó a una crítica a la centralización del poder y a la propuesta de una forma de organización basada en el control cara a cara. Tratando con temas similares, Paul Feyerabend deconstruyó la idea de un método científico universal, denunció el potencial opressivo de la ciencia, y afirmó que el conocimiento científico no tiene preferencia inherente sobre otras formas de conocimiento para acceder a las instituciones de poder. Este estudio tiene como objetivo presentar y discutir aspectos del conductismo radical de Skinner, y del anarquismo epistemológico, de Feyeratend, que tratan de temas comunes. Llegamos a la conclusión de que, aunque las diferencias sobresalientes, ambas perspectivas contienen algunas propuestas convergentes y prácticamente complementarias, cuyo diálogo podría ser útil para los objetivos de la búsqueda de una sociedad libre.

B. F. Skinner's work encompasses epistemological concerns, including discussions about methodology and truth criteria, along with political and social ones, concerning the relationship between science and society. From a speech, in some aspects, coincident with a kind of positivism, Skinner came to criticize purely formalist tendencies about scientific method, and from the defense of the management of society by experts, he came to a criticism of the centralization of power and to the proposal of a form of organization based on face to face control. Dealing with similar topics, Paul Feyerabend deconstructed the idea of a universal scientific method, denounced an oppressive potential of science, and claimed for scientific knowledge to have no inherent preference over other forms of knowledge to access to institutions of power. Considering the importance of both authors for the debates in the context of history and philosophy of science, this study aims to present and discuss aspects of Skinner's radical behaviorism and Feyerabend's epistemological anarchism that deal with common themes. We conclude that, although salient differences, both perspectives contain some convergent and virtually complementary propositions, whose dialogue could be useful to their pursuit of a free society.

Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend.

This volume is devoted to a reappraisal of the philosophy of Paul Feyerabend. It has four aims. The first is to reassess his already well-known work from the 1960s and 1970s in light of contemporary developments in the history and philosophy of science. The second is to explore themes in his neglected later work, including recently published and previously unavailable writings. The third is to assess the contributions that Feyerabend can make to contemporary debate, on topics such as perspectivism, realism, and political philosophy of science. The fourth and final aim is to reconsider Feyerabend's place within the history of philosophy of science in the light of new scholarship.

Historical antecedents to the philosophy of Paul Feyerabend.

Paul Feyerabend has been considered a very radical philosopher of science for proposing that we may advance hypotheses contrary to well-confirmed experimental results, that observations make theoretical assumptions, that all methodological rules have exceptions, that ordinary citizens may challenge the judgment of experts, and that human happiness should be a key value for science. As radical as these theses may sound, they all have historical antecedents. In defending the Copernican view, Galileo exemplified the first two; Mill, Aristotle and Machiavelli all argued for pluralism; Aristotle gave commonsense reasons for why ordinary citizens may be able to judge the work of experts; and a combination of Plato's and Aristotle's views can offer strong support for the connection between science and happiness.

Rediscovering Einstein's legacy: How Einstein anticipates Kuhn and Feyerabend on the nature of science.

Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend promote incommensurability as a central component of their conflicting accounts of the nature of science. This paper argues that in so doing, they both develop Albert Einstein's views, albeit in different directions. Einstein describes scientific revolutions as conceptual replacements, not mere revisions, endorsing 'Kant-on-wheels' metaphysics in light of 'world change'. Einstein emphasizes underdetermination of theory by evidence, rational disagreement in theory choice, and the non-neutrality of empirical evidence. Einstein even uses the term 'incommensurable' specifically to apply to challenges posed to comparatively evaluating scientific theories in 1949, more than a decade before Kuhn and Feyerabend. This analysis shows how Einstein anticipates substantial components of Kuhn and Feyerabend's views, and suggests that there are strong reasons to suspect that Kuhn and Feyerabend were directly inspired by Einstein's use of the term 'incommensurable', as well as his more general methodological and philosophical reflections.

Was Feyerabend a Popperian? Methodological issues in the History of the Philosophy of Science.

For more than three decades, there has been significant debate about the relation between Feyerabend and Popper. The discussion has been nurtured and complicated by the rift that opened up between the two and by the later Feyerabend's controversial portrayal of his earlier self. The first part of the paper provides an overview of the accounts of the relation that have been proposed over the years, disentangles the problems they deal with, and analyses the evidence supporting their conclusions as well as the methodological approaches used to process that evidence. Rather than advancing a further speculative account of the relation based on Feyerabend's philosophical work or autobiographical recollections, the second part of the paper strives to clarify the problems at issue by making use of a wider range of evidence. It outlines a historical reconstruction of the social context within which Feyerabend's intellectual trajectory developed, putting a special emphasis on the interplay between the perceived intellectual identity of Feyerabend, Feyerabend's own intellectual self-concept, and the peculiar features of the evolving Popperian research group.

Feyerabend's 'The concept of intelligibility in modern physics' (1948).

This essay introduces the transcription and translation of Paul Feyerabend's Der Begriff der Verständlichkeit in der modernen Physik [The concept of intelligibility in modern physics] (1948), which is an early essay written by Paul Feyerabend in 1948 on the topic of intelligibility (Verständlichkeit) and visualizability (Anschaulichkeit) of physical theories. The existence of such essay was likely. It is listed in his bibliography as his first publication. Yet the content of the essay was unknown, as no original or copy is extant in Feyerabend's Nachlass and no known published version was available to the community-until now. The essay has both historical and philosophical interest: it is, as far as our current knowledge goes, Feyerabend's earliest extant publication. It documents Feyerabend's philosophical interest as a physicist-to-be, in what he himself called his "positivist" phase; and it gives a rare if fragmentary insight into the early discussions of the 'Third Vienna Circle' and, more generally, the philosophical culture of discussion in Vienna.

The concept of intelligibility in modern physics (1948).

This is an English translation of Paul Feyerabend's earliest extant essay "Der Begriff der Verständlichkeit in der modernen Physik" (1948). In it, Feyerabend defends positivism as a progressive framework for scientific research in certain stages of scientific development. He argues that in physics visualizability (Anschaulichkeit) and intelligibility (Verständlichkeit) are time-conditioned concepts: what is deemed visualizable in the development of physical theories is relative to a specific historical context and changes over time. He concludes that from time to time the abandonment of visualizability is crucial for progress in physics, as it is conducive to major theory change, illustrating the point on the basis of advances in atomic theory.

Der Begriff der Verständlichkeit in der modernen Physik (1948).

This is a critical transcription of Paul Feyerabend's earliest extant essay "Der Begriff der Verständlichkeit in der modernen Physik" (1948) recovered from the European Forum Alpbach archives. In it, Feyerabend defends positivism as a progressive framework for scientific research in certain stages of scientific development. He argues that in physics visualizability (Anschaulichkeit) and intelligibility (Verständlichkeit) are time-conditioned concepts: what is deemed visualizable in the development of physical theories is relative to a specific historical context and changes over time. He concludes that from time to time the abandonment of visualizability is crucial for progress in physics, as it is conducive to major theory change, illustrating the point on the basis of advances in atomic theory.

Feyerabend, truth, and relativisms: Footnotes to the Italian debate.

There is a substantial literature on Feyerabend's relativism-including a few papers in this collection-but fewer specific studies of the ways that his writings and ideas have been taken up among the non-academic public. This is odd, given his obvious interest in the lives and concerns of persons who were not 'intellectuals'-a term that, for him, had a pejorative ring to it. It is also odd, given the abundance of evidence of how Feyerabend's relativism played a role in a specific national and cultural context-namely, contemporary Italian debates about relativism. This paper offers a study of how Feyerabend's ideas have been deployed by Italian intellectuals and cultural commentators-including the current Pope-and critically assesses them.

Feyerabend on politics, education, and scientific culture.

The purpose of this paper is to offer a sympathetic reconstruction of the political thought of Paul Feyerabend. Using a critical discussion of the idea of the 'free society' it is suggested that his political thought is best understood in terms of three thematic concerns-liberation, hegemony, and the authority of science-and that the political significance of those claims become clear when they are considered in the context of his educational views. It emerges that Feyerabend is best understood as calling for the grounding of cognitive and cultural authorities-like the sciences-in informed deliberation, rather than the uncritical embrace of prevailing convictions. It therefore emerges that a free society is best understood as one of epistemically responsible citizenship rather than epistemically anarchistic relativism of the 'anything goes' sort-a striking anticipation of current debates about philosophy of science in society.

Relativism in Feyerabend's later writings.

This paper reconstructs, and distinguishes between, Feyerabend's different forms of relativism in his later writings. Science in a Free Society remains close to familiar forms of relativism, while, at the same time, developing an original but under-argued form of political relativism, and rejecting "conversion" models of cultural exchange. Farewell to Reason moves away from common renderings of relativism, and develops a range of different new forms. Central here are links between relativism, skepticism and infallibilism. In the last six years of his life, Feyerabend often criticizes a peculiar radical form of relativism that arguably no-one has ever proposed or defended. In the same context, Feyerabend sketches an "ontological" form of relativism. It combines "Kantian humility", metaphysical pluralism and constructivism.

Late Feyerabend on materialism, mysticism, and religion.

Feyerabend's interests in religion and mysticism grew through his career. In his later writings, Feyerabend's numerous critiques of scientific materialism are often accompanied by purported advantages of religious orientations and temperaments. These recommendations do not simply follow from his tolerant theoretical pluralism; they are more positive attempts to articulate distinctive aspects of human life satisfied by religion, but not by scientific materialism. Elevating the human need for mystery, reverence, and love, he contrasts these goods with the deliverances of monistic conceptions of science and reason. I bring attention to some of the common themes in these remarks to argue that they were integral with other parts of his philosophical project and that they could serve as helpful rejoinders to contemporary exhortations to science-based secularism from philosophers of science.

Challenging Expertise: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on democracy, public participation and scientific authority: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on scientific authority and public participation.

This paper compares Feyerabend's arguments in Science in a Free Society to the controversial theory of expertise proposed by Harry Collins and Robert Evans as a Third Wave of Science Studies. Is the legitimacy of democratic decisions threatened by the unquestioned authority of scientific advice? Or does, on the contrary, science need protection from too much democratic participation in technical decisions? Where Feyerabend's political relativism envisions democratic society as inherently pluralist and demands equal contribution of all traditions and worldviews to public decision-making, Collins and Evans hold a conception of elective modernism, defending the reality and value of technical expertise and arguing that science deserves a privileged status in modern democracies, because scientific values are also democratic values. I will argue that Feyerabend's political relativism provides a valuable framework for the evaluation of Collins' and Evans' theory of expertise. By constructing a dialog between Feyerabend and this more recent approach in Science and Technology Studies, the aim of this article is not only to show where the two positions differ and in what way they might be reconciled, but also how Feyerabend's philosophy provides substantial input to contemporary debate.

The abundant world: Paul Feyerabend's metaphysics of science.

The goal of this paper is to provide an interpretation of Feyerabend's metaphysics of science as found in late works like Conquest of Abundance and Tyranny of Science. Feyerabend's late metaphysics consists of an attempt to criticize and provide a systematic alternative to traditional scientific realism, a package of views he sometimes referred to as "scientific materialism." Scientific materialism is objectionable not only on metaphysical grounds, nor because it provides a poor ground for understanding science, but because it implies problematic claims about the epistemic and cultural authority of science, claims incompatible with situating science properly in democratic societies. I show how Feyerabend's metaphysical view, which I call "the abundant world" or "abundant realism," constitute a sophisticated and challenging form of ontological pluralism that makes interesting connections with contemporary philosophy of science and issues of the political and policy role of science in a democratic society.

The methodological defense of realism scrutinized.

I revisit an older defense of scientific realism, the methodological defense, a defense developed by both Popper and Feyerabend. The methodological defense of realism concerns the attitude of scientists, not philosophers of science. The methodological defense is as follows: a commitment to realism leads scientists to pursue the truth, which in turn is apt to put them in a better position to get at the truth. In contrast, anti-realists lack the tenacity required to develop a theory to its fullest. As a consequence, they are less likely to get at the truth. My aim is to show that the methodological defense is flawed. I argue that a commitment to realism does not always benefit science, and that there is reason to believe that a research community with both realists and anti-realists in it may be better suited to advancing science. A case study of the Copernican Revolution in astronomy supports this claim.