Paul Karl Feyerabend - Essay Example

? SOCIETY NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED AGAINST SCIENCE Location: Paul Karl Feyerabend; Society Needs to be Defended against Science Introduction Paul Karl Feyerabend was a philosopher of science born in Australia. He is famed for his contribution in philosophy while working as professor in University of California, Berkeley where he worked for thirty years (1958-1989). Feyerabend was profoundly influenced by the counter-culture movements of the 1960’s, which motivated him to developing his scientific philosophy based on science, scientific methods, and influence of science on the society. His philosophical work and line of thought is highlighted in his two books, Against Method and Science in a Free Society. In these two books, he expresses and defends his ideas on the nature of scientific methods, concluding that there are no ground rules on governing scientific methods. He opposed the idea of having a single rigid scientific process to which all scientific research is carried out with the argument that this would make science predictable thus denying it the opportunity to evolve (Feyerabend 2000). In this study, Feyerabend shows that new findings in science, on which theories are later founded, have enormous influence from past events, theoriesand facts. Scientists researching in a new area of study do not only apply old scientific methods in fresh observations but they also observe the field under study under the mental influence of old theories and already existing facts. To this effect, much of their findings will be subjected towards what they already know in this field, such that their new work appears to marchnew observations to old facts and while improving them to come up with new theories. This process shows high levels of falsification in science, where scientists will do anything to defend their theories and ensure that they fit in with significant facts to avoid dismissal (Feyerabend 2000).With these and other arguments, Feyerabend uses philosophical facts and methods to show reasons why the society should be defended from science. This paper evaluates Feyerabend’s argument that the society should be protected from science, and the degree to which science warrant the special epistemic status it enjoys. The paper achieves its aim by looking at science and society, and then narrows down to the effect of science on eduation and religion. Through this, this essay will cover the need of protecting the society from science and the significance of science in such areas, which warrant its use in them. Science and Society- Scientific Methods Feyerabend developed an anarchistic philosophy of science. Anarchism is a political philosophy in which all forms of state authority are viewed as undesirable and unnecessary. Anarchists advocate for a free society that is based on voluntary participation in activities, and freedom of association between individuals and groups. Anarchism involves opposing the influence of authority and hierarchies that affect human interaction within a society within a state. These societies advocate for a society with no hierarchies and have no influence from state institutions. Feyerand advocated for separation of the state from science in the same manner that religion is detached from the state in the modern world (Feyerabend 2000). He envisioned a society where all traditions have equivalent treatment with equal privileges in accessing attention and central power. The period of the late 90’s was when science was honourable and viewed as a great privilege. Scientific facts were treated with great reverence to the point where individuals sacrifices their traditional and cultural believes Feyerand thought that too much credit was given to science in a situation where the society was not fully equipped with enough information and facts on the true nature of science. The society was therefore, exposed to science without proper information on the traditions, theories and functionalities of science. This was done since it was a new phenomenon that appeared to explain the blurry concepts of nature man quickly and ignorantly embraced its concepts and viewed them as accurate and unquestionable. They then dropped their foundational believes, cultural and religious traditions to blindly follow scientific theories. A look at the dynamics within the society indicates that explanations to these changes inclined to scientific discoveries and theories. For example, in ancient civilisation, practical methods of weather prediction were used by traditional specialists to foretell the likelihood of good or bad weather and thus assisting in the creation of an economic calendar for weather related activities. These specialists would study animal and plant behavior and establish a pattern, which is then affiliated to the occurrence of particular weather conditions. For example, birds are sensitive to changes in characteristics of air surrounding a large water mass. Traditionally, fishermen would study bird characteristics to tell the severity of an oncoming storm. They would then determine whether to go fishing or not. Scientist on the other hand portrays no originality in their scientific ideas and methods. For example, in weather prediction, it is important to note that the fact underlying behavioral changes in birds is changes in air pressure characteristics. Animals are naturally tuned to sensibility in changes the environment that condition them to look for secure grounds in the occurrence of unfavourable weather conditions. Scientists then take this fact to coin metrological stations, in which they set up different weather instruments for analysing weather conditions to come up with a pattern that is then used nationally to develop agricultural, sporting, fishing and other weather related calendars. The introduction of these scientific methods of weather prediction that come with arithmetic, geometry and general literacy introduced the concepts of drawing of charts, graphs that are based on observation and recording trends. This enables man to have a greater visual and mental impression on the society prompting people to look up to scientist for the prediction of weather and climatic conditions. With time, the traditional methods of prediction are overridden and gradually forgotten not for lack of credibility but due to the superiority, which science commands in the society. In this instance, science which is rather seen as a way of liberating people from poor and undocumented ideologies is seen as a repressor that is gradually taking the place of traditions and beliefs, implanting itself in the position formally played by other institutions in the society and thus literary killing them. Such an institution does not deserve much epistemological praise and honour in whichever society. With this kind of pattern it is of importance that the society is protected from the subjective findings collected from science, for too much scientific influence erodes traditional and cultural values in the society. Effects of Science on Education Feyerabend defended the thought that science should be detached from the public just like in the case of religion. The split-upbetween science and state will liberate the society to make independent choices to pick what is good and helpful out of the many ideologies offered in science and to drop what is not necessary (Feyerabend 2000). In a liberated society, individuals will choose what to learn in school with no restrictions of a scientifically predetermined system of learning. If the contemporary states were separated from science, parents would be allowed an opportunity to choose subjects for their children based on what they find necessary to address the unique needs of their children. However, with scientific educational standards in content delivery and evaluation in schools, parents are limited on their contribution of their child’s development on the educational context. With these standards put in place, many people in the society feel bound to conform into unhealthy learning processes such as rot reading and cramming to meet the scientifically set standards that will ensure certification at the various levels of education. However, research also indicates that these methods of content delivery, scientific teaching, and learning processes have counteractive consequences on learners on completion. A majority of graduates who measure up to the standards set by scientific methods develop problems in solving practical problems within the society. Scientific methods offer students analytical skills, where they are able to apply scientific theories to solve problems that come their way within an area of specialisation. This content is well used during a learning process. However, the learners are mostly concealed to a set of similar problems with similar characteristics within a particular field. Learners are thus denied the opportunity and exposure to a variety of problems that are present in the society. For this reason, the society is limited by science to think and act within a limited line of thought especially through the education system that is highly affected by scientific ideologies. The system of education offered to the people in a society determine their intellectual and social development, hence through education, science has shaped the characteristics of the society one generation to another. To liberate the society from the effects of science would call for a change in education systems to allow for a better child centered curriculum that favors the development of unique abilities and talents in individuals rather than having uniform abilities within the society. The availability of diversified skills will ensure faster problem solving in the society thus saving time, lives, and other important resources. Effects of Science on Religion The society is a system that is governed by a set of laws, social institutions, and bodies that have been strategically placed to ensure morality within the human relations in the society. These institutions, such as religion have been established to respond to the human intellectual curiosity on the origin, nature, and destiny of the world. Religious doctrines indicate that the existence of a supreme being that takes care and controls all beings. This supernatural being is believed to be in charge of all creation, from creating it to sustaining it. Reverence to the creator make the human being the most religious of all organisms in the entire universe. With religion in the hearts and minds of many in the world, the society is built to be a respectful environment where everything is believed to have a purpose for its creation. Environment conservation is viewed as continuity in reproduction and so is marriage and childbirth. The institution of religion is well placed to address to the needs of the society while still maintaining a balance between all the social, economic, and political aspects of the society. The introduction of science in the society subjects man to a position of doubting religion. Research carried out in different fields of research expose man to a reality that man has the ability avert and delay death but also the capability to explore space that exists beyond earth to visit the moon. Man was able to preserve energy, food and basically overcome many of the environmental problems experienced in the world to get reliable and sustainable methods of survival. Unlike in religion, scientific is normally enhanced by solid and practical evidence to back it and persist over religion (Feyerabend 2000). In many areas, the religion of the society is at conflict with science.one such area that seems to cause the dominant conflict is the difference on how science and religion view God. In religion, the human being is the most superior of all creation; they are created with a conscience with which they connect to fellow human beings and the entire environment in whole. The human species is the superior of all other beings and on it is the responsibility to maintain and utilise the universe. Science on the other hand looks at the history of man in relation to all the other species him. Science then views man as a special species, a premise that triggers more scientific research. Science takes on the study of man to explicate man’s physiological and psychological processes scientifically in comparison to other species. Scientists then use these characteristics to formulate theories on which scientific ideologies are built. These kinds of ideas are considered a great violation of the human religious nature and subjectivity to learn these concepts through the provision of formal education makes it even worse. This shows another reason why the society isthreatened by science a factor that inhibits development of a free society. Conclusion Feyerabend made remarkable contributions on the methods that should be used in science, showing which methods were good and helpful in facilitating scientific advancement and which methods stagnated the progress of science. He argued that the methods used in science were egocentric and lacked originality. For example through an analysis on theory credibility, he noticed that for a new theory to be considered successful and credible, it used traditional scientific methods and matched the findings to earlier theories with small improvements added to show evolution overtime. According to him, new theories were therefore not accepted not for their appropriateness in using scientific methods but by the creativity of experts to look at historic events and issues in a new perspective. This argument explains the reason why most scientific findings are likely to be accepted if aligned to popular believes, religious habits or aligned to social systems. Any theory that is not well understood and therefore not aligned to well-founded facts is likely to be unacceptable in the society. Theories are the foundational concepts on which science is developed. These theories usually based on concrete evidence show that scientific methods can be used to collect substantial information based on observations made on the universe, man and the relationship between man and his environment. Application of these findings should be used with great caution and care since subjecting the society to believing, adopting and adapting to these theories is a violation of their intellectual ability to choose what suites them best. The society, therefore, should be exposed to the facts available in science but should be left to individually decide on what they take in depending on the situation they are in, just like in the case of religious choices and preferences. This therefore indicates that science in the society is given much credit than it deserves, not out of choice by the society, but by default environment. References Feyerabend, P. K. (2000). Against method .XD-US. London [u.a.], Verso. Read More