Against the scientific method

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I'm currently reading Against Method, a book by Paul Feyerabend, which makes an interesting argument against a theme we commonly cite on SFN. The so-called scientific method, Feyerabend writes, is both a poor description of how science has actually been conducted over centuries and a poor framework to adopt if one were to enforce its rules. Strictly following the scientific method would only prevent discoveries, says Feyerabend.

 

I haven't finished the book, but so far, Feyerabend has made interesting points. For example, we on SFN often argue that new hypotheses must be able to explain phenomena that older theories already can, and must make testable predictions which can demonstrate their superiority to current theories. But many times new theories not only provide new explanations but change the nature of the evidence, meaning they cannot be evaluated on the basis of their agreement with current theories. For example, when Galileo argued that the Earth was in motion around the Sun, contemporary accepted theories held that it was impossible for the Earth to be in motion: if it was, then a stone dropped from a tall tower would travel in a wide arc as the Earth sailed past underneath it.

 

Galileo convinced his audience not by making predictions which agreed with current "experimental data" -- data points showing that the Earth must be stationary -- but by arguing that our perceptions were misleading, and by introducing the ad hoc idea of inertia which made relative motion work. His hypothesis did not explain the same phenomena the old theory did -- it denied the phenomena existed.

 

It's a fascinating and well-written book, and I recommend it to members interested in the scientific method and the historical progression of science. I'm curious to see what other arguments Feyerabend has against the scientific method as I finish the book.

[swansont]

Data are always interpreted according to the prevailing paradigms. The data didn't change in this example, but the interpretation did, and new predictions could be made and other explanations made more sense.

[Appolinaria]

Cool. Thanks for sharing.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Data are always interpreted according to the prevailing paradigms. The data didn't change in this example, but the interpretation did, and new predictions could be made and other explanations made more sense.

Right, but the principles underlying the prevailing paradigm may not be explicit. Many times we can't determine what they are without deliberately introducing an incompatible theory and asking, "What do we have to change to make this theory sensible?"

 

The idea that "all motion is absolute motion" is really a metaphysical principle, and a new hypothesis can't support an alternative by evidence, since it's metaphysics.

[ajb]

Sounds a very interesting book. To my mind the scientific method is really a guiding principle and one that need not be strictly followed.