The Tyranny of Science

The Tyranny of Science arose from a series of lectures originally entitled 'What is knowledge? What is science?' that Paul Feyerabend gave to a general audience in Italy during 1992. Paul Feyerabend (1924-94) devoted his whole life to tackling those very same issues. The lectures are a condensed version of the course he continuously redeveloped while teaching at Berkeley and elsewhere from 1958 to 1992. As ever, Feyerabend does not preach solutions here, but challenges basic preconceptions. He offers new ways of looking at the ethical responsibilities of being a scientist. I can provide only an outline of his argument here, since our book provides a final non-technical sketch of ideas detailed elsewhere in a lifetime of study and teaching, ranging from basic research in physics to the philosophy of science. The lectures are reported verbatim in the book, which also records the question and answer sessions after each lecture. Feyerabend, as ever, denies the possibility of any systematic presentation and takes the role of a story-teller. I provide a terse overview of this cornucopia of ideas presented in each lecture.

Conflict and Harmony: Let us consider two world concerns: first, the Big Bang theory; secondly, the present disorder round the world, with terrible events close to bestiality taking place. How can we make sense of both together? 'Pure' science and everyday life seem unconnected. Currently, science claims openness to discussion and continuous attempts to falsify existing theory: but there is no prize for aesthetic or ethical quality in research: furthermore, inside science, there is no connection between e.g. basic particle theory and economic theory. What alternative approaches to a world view exist? Religion: There is no agreement on principles and no agreed 'way of progress'. Theory of Art: There are as many theories as theorists. Philosophy: There are different schools, but no agreement since the earliest Greeks. Feyerabend says that the possibility of a coherent account of everything is an illusion. So disconnectedness is the rule. But is this bad? Feyerabend provides no systematic argument against the common view of science as the only way of having a direct connection with reality. He says that the word 'system' implies removing ideas from the their original environment and arranging them in an artificial pattern which can be taught. But that pattern is simply a fashion. "If you search for truth, don't come here", he announces. In fact, all scholars tell stories; some are just more complicated than others. The author chooses in this book to illustrate his views by telling the story of philosophy from the earliest times in Greece. The early Greeks saw a unity behind the variety of experience, like water behind its appearances as solid, liquid, mist and steam. But science nowadays seems mainly concerned with fitting new discoveries into a pre-existing pattern, a previous theory.

The Disunity of Science Feyerabend quotes Monod as disgusted that 'objective truth' (Scientism) has not swept away all other forms of thinking and "has not written an end to the covenant between man and nature". But does Science's "prodigious power of explanation" (he means materialism) make people kinder, more loving, or less selfish? The naivety of scientists (how things are) when they talk of philosophy (how things come to be) can be clearly demonstrated. You can easily destroy naive materialism with more complex arguments, but you need use only common sense. However, we can accept useful results from current Science without accepting their views as the only true church. Feyerabend provides detailed examples of Science ultra-simplifying real-world experience to produce theory, and then complexifying the resulting theory to 'explain' the experience when it doesn't fit that existing theory. But then Science cannot develop in a strictly 'Scientific' manner, for progress implies change; which implies an openness to a new world view; which conflicts with any previously existing claim of science to be monolithic truth. And a new world view may take a century to provide convincing results and become accepted. Such a 'result' may also be uninteresting to one community, and destructive to another, such as interference with the natural operation of DNA. Furthermore, a new world view may happen to clash with an existing fashion or a temporary enthusiasm, though sadly never with the scientific mania for 'rationality'. Feyerabend says that theoretical scientists judge nature from afar. They claim no need for close observation. As a result, the monster 'Science' is a cut and paste job constructed by propagandists, reductionists and educators. And commentators pussy-foot round it just as earlier investigators had to pussy-foot round the dictates of the Catholic Church.

The abundance of Nature The science discussed so far is theoretical, and different from that of practical experimentalists. Philosophers of Science tend to 'explain' only science theoreticians like the Logical Positivists. In contrast, Feyerabend sees the experimenter as a rhetorician, on a separate level from the theorist. The scientific theorist is closer to the philosopher, for no practical experimentation is required by either. Feyerabend introduces a stronger idea of myth as presently conceived, as a higher theory of how things came to be. All societies have detailed procedures for living, but also foundation myths. These myths are similar in position to abstract mathematical theory among the founders of the Western rationalist tradition. Has science been successful as a result of regular observation and experiment? No; a new principle may be opposed to a particular experiment. And many principles have no basis in experience, e.g. laws held to be valid throughout the whole of space time and temperature range. Why? This is the biggest myth of all, with no chance of proof by experience. Does the concept not depend on a overarching power, God or Reality or whatever, as a primal cause? In earlier times, a local tribe was under the local god, other tribes were under their own gods. The tribes intermingled and the differences among the gods were smoothed out. But a single God can become dominant only by trampling over original differences; e.g. The Indian culture destroyed in North America; or earlier Chinese cultures, more advanced than in the West, which have been ignored. Feyerabend provides more examples from Greek History; the suppression of individual differences between concepts to form a single super-concept. This smoothing out is never reached by democratic decision, but through imposition by the strongest group.

Dehumanising Humans Here Feyerabend summarises the whole argument of the book. The chasm between scientific theorising and ordinary life: on one side, cool abstract judgement, on the other pain and suffering and disaster. Philosophers of science explain the divide: science deals with facts, life as it actually is. Contrasted with science is Politics, how life should be. You cannot argue logically from facts to what should be, so they say we must have separated provinces. But was this separation the result of 'objective' research? Before Science arose, experience showed no laws. And useful things were made by artisans, not by theorists. So what theory has shown staying power over millennia? Feyerabend cites Christianity, which has continued against all attacks from materialists, and grown in strength. Feyerabend says he has been telling stories, while others want a 'systematic formal account', using principles and logical processes. But where does that all come from? Why use the latest viewpoint rather than an earlier, why not use a different school of philosophy? Why use experiments we construct today? "Because they are successful". Do the results of scientific experiments bring peace, make us more loving, give us what we really want? Where did the 'laws' which Science uses to produce a problem 'solution' come from? Feyerabend says that there is no single answer to any problem. A study of history does not provide a unique answer, but shows that there have been many answers to a given problem in the past. So back to Greek philosophy: Originally, philosophers were rich amateurs. Then professionals arose, who showed how to win by cheating and being able to justify it. They built the sciences of Rhetoric, how to persuade, and Logic, how to convince those who disagreed. They showed that they could find an ingenious logic to justify any course of profitable action. How did the professionals justify their ideas? They used a variety of teaching methods: epic history, lyric poetry, drama, scientific prose. Herodotus used the novel, the short story, one liners, and instructive examples in his histories. Plato rejected all these methods, and used simulated dialogue for all difficult problems. But every original experience consists of much more than can be written. Much more about any subject remains only in the memory of those present. Feyerabend explains: Polyani called it Tacit Knowledge, developed further by Harry Collins[1], who gives an example. The word TREE represents a concept bag'. A definition (a short sequence of words) connects concept bags representing other concepts. This cannot be replaced by something more systematic. All engineers use tacit knowledge, the tools of their trade, which cannot be written down, since their knowledge develops continuously. Feyerabend says that any 'systematic treatise' is an "exercise in futility". Any new idea is shaped by many factors, it involves tacit knowledge, passions, politics, and public relations skill.

His milieu Tyranny of Science is a final presentation of the ideas of a lifetime. In fact, the most complete and compact summary of Feyerabend's ideas are provided in his much better known Against Method [2]. We learn there of Feyerabend's close involvement with Kuhn, Popper and Lakatos , all pioneers in the Philosophy of Science. The latest edition of that book carries a reprint of an introduction for a new Chinese edition, a superb three-page précis of his views, together with an informed introduction by Ian Hacking[3]. Sadly, Feyerabend may be known best for his aphorism "Anything goes", which often taken out of context by detractors. It simply refers to the multitude of different ways that science is undertaken and how scientists work. And it suggests a genuine openness to new ideas, a foundation principle of our Network, which is surely breaking the bonds of the Science Myth right now. The general thrust of all the foregoing is that Science cannot develop a serious view of the world without taking into account all of previous human thinking and viewpoints other than the traditional 'Scientific' one. Every scientist has a belief system which underlies their statements, it is just not made explicit. And all these underlying preconceptions need to be brought out into the open.

His continuing influence During the reign of the science myth in the public mind over the last 50 years, Feyerabend has been seen as a renegade peculiar. But now there is a growing group of philosophers of science who relate to Feyerabend. In particular, members of the original 'Stanford School', including Nancy Cartwright[4], John Dupré[5], and Ian Hacking[3], joined in spirit more recently by Ian James Kidd [6] at Durham. The computer game designer Chris Bateman[7] is becoming involved in this area. This is significant because he could gain the interest of younger people who already know of his work. We owe continuing gratitude to members Mary Midgley and Rupert Sheldrake for their great hatchet jobs carried out on various perpetrators of the Science Myth as the only true myth. In my own view, all these considerations cannot be separated off from Theology and from the personal ethical viewpoint which controls how we choose to see the world: but that is for further debate[8,9,10].

References

1. Harry Collins: see http://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo8461024.html

2. Paul Feyerabend: Against Method Verso 2010 ISBN 13: 978 1 84467 442 8

3. Ian Hacking: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Hacking

4. Nancy Cartwright directs the Order project. See: http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/projects/orderProject/Publications.aspx

5. Ian James Kidd: see http://durham.academia.edu/IanJamesKidd

6. John Dupré: see http://www.galilean-library.org/manuscript.php?postid=43815

7. Chris Bateman: The Mythology of Evolution Zero Books 2012 ISBN 978 1 78099 649 3

8. A.N.Whitehead (1925): Science and the modern world Simon and Schuster, USA, 1997 ISBN 978 0 684 83639 3

9. Nancy Murphy and George Ellis: On the Moral Nature of the Universe Fortress Press 1996 ISBN 978 1 78099

10. Ian James Kidd: Receptivity to Mystery: Cultivation, Loss and Scientism See http://www.academia.edu/1831353/Receptivity_to_Mystery