Against Method. Is the approach to science a valid form of inquiry - Essay Example

Against Method; is the approach to science a valid form of inquiry? Introduction Paul Feyerabend’s Against Method challenges modern science in various aspects. He believes that contemporary science has been unchallenged for many years, and its methodologies and assumptions require to be reviewed. Concerning falsifications and contemporary scientific theories he highlights that there are often many inconsistent observations witnessed. This text assesses the deficiencies of numerous widespread notions concerning scientific development and the nature of knowledge. He asserts that people can comprehend scientific advances by focusing in historical contexts. He analyzes how the philosophy of science has constantly overstressed on practice over method, and believes the potentiality of anarchism replacing rationalism in the field theory of knowledge. Moreover, the American experience movie by Kinsey (2005) explores American sexuality in rather a sloppy and a bit unscientific manner. He tackles the issues of the ignorance of American undergraduate concerning sex in his documentary. Therefore, both Kinsey and Feyerabend are massive in going against the contemporary scientific methods, to highlight their topics and make their stance concerning the production of knowledge. Those refuting the arguments of Feyerabend claim that he opportunistically redefines science between process and institution for his own benefits. They claim that he constructs a straw man from the notions that science is based in creating facts as rather than on models. However, as someone who was captivated by the notion of rationality and its correlation to method, Feyerabend constructed a strong case against the belief that there was a correct technique, which people can trust in the production of scientific knowledge. Therefore, he strongly opposed methods in every form and promoted an anarchistic stance concerning the production of scientific knowledge (Brace, 1). Most scientific methods utilize correspondence, falsification and coherency claims to support their arguments. However, Feyerabend formulates a strong critique countering all the emblematic notions, which support primacy scientific processes. Contrary, he suggests, “Anything goes” as the argument he supports. He chief idea was that immediately after people form a definition of a method they should as well define the constitutes of the correct way of carrying out activities, which involves practicing limit of both what they can obtain and themselves. This is because a certain method, which has accompanying, measures of success, results to given consequences. According to Feyerabend, this means that the consequences of methods are both limiting and oppressive. Thus, when scholars or scientists are permitted to assess the world in an established manner, they reduce the potentiality of finding novel comprehensions and explanations, which might be more informative and richer (Brace, 1). Critics argue that Feyerabend does not tackle critical factors if his notions were to be taken seriously. They argue that he is famous because he ignores the question of what makes a scientific result better than other results because his argument only states that scientific results do not always result in better outcomes. However, Feyerabend argues that this aspect does not necessarily result to better results because sometimes people are dealing with a certain given aspect rather than a universal notion. The arguments of Feyerabend are apparent in the scientific documentary Kinsey whereby the role of science in inquiry and inquiry itself is explored. As aforementioned, it is argued that Feyerabend was against the application of methods in science. This was with the aim of avoiding scientific pretentions, which were observable in the scientific scenario. For instance, in the aforementioned film, it appears that the scientific study of Kinsley was motivated by his childhood experiences ( Goodman and Maggio). The struggles of the protagonist in the early stages of his life shaped the perceptions and preconceptions about the issue of sexuality prior to his engagement as a scientist. These experiences motivated the scientist to push the frontiers of scientific research by exploring the taboo subject of sexuality in his historical context. This scenario appears to be consistent with the arguments of Feyerabend whereby he states that science is a mythical phenomenon whereby the population without comprehensive engagement accepts the sentiments and results of scientific studies. This is evident with the daring and pioneering approach of Kinsey to explore the issue of sexuality in a conservative population. Considering that the American population was shy about sexuality and the actuality of diverse orientations, Kinsey was a pioneer in ensuring that there was information on the issue of American sexuality for the public. Despite this aspect of scientific research being new to society, the movie shows that Kinsey made some significant contributions considering the American sexual experience. Despite the study being marred by a lack of information and knowledge in the field, Kinsey engaged the study with an open mind and with courage in order to explore this new dimension of scientific research. This is consistent with the arguments of Feyerabend, who states that science is not confined to fact and conclusions from information, which is factual. This means that science has an allowance of ideas and interpretations forwarded by the scientist. This means that in science, there is a possibility of error. Therefore, in the documentary, the decision of Kinsey to explore the issue of sexuality in America was prone to error and mistakes since there was no reliable fact concerning the explored topic. According to Feyerabend, science is accommodating towards opinion diversity. This means that new ideas and premises are accepted in science. This dictate is consistent with the aforementioned film whereby Kinsey actively promoted the idea of diverse sexual orientations within the American society. This shows that the sentiments of the scientist was not confined to the social norms but was willing to explore this new theory. Despite the controversy of the subject, Kinsey was keen to fulfill his scientific obligation of understanding the American sexual life. It was apparent that the society questioned the approach of Kinsey towards the research. This involved his unorthodox research methodology whereby he engaged prostitutes and homosexuals which surprised most people. It is evident that the actions of Kinsey were consistent with the ideas of Feyerabend, in that, when diverse opinion is not embraced, the society will have a negative reaction to the scientific information provided by the research. This explains the negative reaction towards the work of Kinsey whereby the society was not ready to accept the unknown truths about American sexuality. Considering the approach of Kinsey, it is apparent that the sentiment that science involves methodological anarchism is valid. Conclusion Both Feyerabend and Kinsey highly introduce some aspects, which go against the modern scientific methods. Their ideas are significant in highlighting that people can widen their scientific knowledge production by not confiding themselves within the scientific methods. Therefore, the lack of scientific objectivity in the movie and the text highlights how these two authors went beyond boundaries to produce their ideas. Therefore, I can recommend the movie and the article to audiences, who wish to understand ideas produced outside the scientific boundaries. Works Cited Brace, A, Robin. Paul Feyerabend: Against Method; The Philosopher of Science Who Mocked Scientific Dogmatism and Challenged Science's Right to Teach Evolution. Web. Available at: < http://www.ukapologetics.net/11/feyerabend.htm> Goodman, Barak & Maggio John. Kinsey: the American experience. Ark Media, Twin Cities Public Television Inc. 2005. Read More