Philosophy of Being and Knowledge

Philosophy of Science

Paul Feyerabend's Anarchism

The vibrant debate surrounding the nature of science gave rise to various philosophical schools, not all of which celebrated science as a value that positively impacts society and the individual. Amid this active discourse emerged a school of thought known as anarchism, which critically assessed the phenomenon of science itself. The founder of this perspective was the Austrian-American philosopher Paul Karl Feyerabend (1924-1994).

Feyerabend contended that there is no objective truth and thus no criterion by which the quality of a scientific theory can be judged. Empirical data alone are incapable of either verifying or falsifying a scientific theory. The role of science, he argued, is to explain the world and help people navigate it, a goal that can be achieved through any means. Various scientific theories may simultaneously and equally succeed in explaining reality and aiding human life. Not only science but any other forms of knowledge can fulfill this role just as well. Mythology, religion, and common sense, Feyerabend argued, help people navigate the world better than science. Yet, the Enlightenment brought about a cultural shift that proclaimed science as the most reliable and exemplary way of understanding reality, displacing all other forms of knowledge. In this way, the Enlightenment thinkers, in their attempt to overcome the dictatorship of ideologies, established a new and even more formidable dictatorship: the dictatorship of science and scientific rigor.

Feyerabend pointed out that science is the only sphere of personal and societal life where there is no freedom. Modern legislation protects individual freedom in all areas except science. One can belong to any religion without coercion and join any political party without facing a totalitarian government. In contemporary culture, only science is granted a monopoly. No one is allowed to reject Copernicus's heliocentrism, Newton's law of gravitation, Pythagoras's theorem, or any other scientific theory taught in schools. Disagreement with religious or political postulates may have no impact on one's life, but dissent from accepted scientific theories will result in severe punishment: lack of degrees, failed careers, and marginalization.

A clear indicator of the totalitarian nature of science is its financial policy. While public expenditure on matters like building new roads, opening new hospitals, or increasing military funding is widely debated, the decision to launch a new lunar expedition is reserved for a narrow circle of specialists. Anyone daring to suggest that some scientific projects are unjustifiably funded and should be reduced is immediately labeled an opponent of science, progress, and civilization, essentially seeking to drag humanity back into barbarism. Similarly, questioning the utility of scientific research is taboo. Even when research yields no practical benefits and consumes vast taxpayer resources, science remains immune to criticism. Any critique of science is considered taboo for a civilized person.

Feyerabend argued that the future of science lies in freedom. There is no need to abandon science altogether, but it should not be treated as a "sacred cow" of modern civilization. He envisioned an ideal state of epistemological permissiveness where everyone could propose and critique theories as they wish, choosing the forms of knowledge they find best. Only then could humanity be liberated from the greatest dictator of modern times—the established science.