Paul Feyerabend

Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994) was an Austrian-born philosopher of science who challenged universal rules for scientific inquiry and defended methodological pluralism.

Scientific method: A family of practices used to investigate questions, test explanations, and build scientific knowledge. Feyerabend disputed the idea that one fixed method governs every successful science.
Epistemological anarchism: Feyerabend’s position that no universal methodological rule can govern every productive episode of inquiry. It names the argument behind his slogan that anything goes.
Vienna Circle: A group of philosophers and scientists who promoted logical analysis and empirically grounded knowledge in early twentieth-century Vienna. Feyerabend’s education in Vienna placed him near the positivist tradition he later challenged.
Logical positivism: A philosophical movement that sought to connect meaningful claims with logic and empirical verification. Feyerabend opposed its hope that a general account could sharply demarcate science from other inquiry.
Science and pseudoscience: The debate over how to distinguish scientific inquiry from claims that imitate or reject its standards. Feyerabend’s rejection of a universal demarcation rule challenges simple boundary tests.
Methodological pluralism: The view that inquiry benefits from using multiple methods rather than following one universal procedure. This is Feyerabend’s alternative to method rules imposed across all sciences.
Against Method: Feyerabend’s 1975 book arguing that scientific history resists universal methodological rules. It develops his case through episodes in which scientists advanced by violating accepted standards.
Karl Popper: An Austrian-British philosopher who made falsifiability central to his account of scientific inquiry. Feyerabend studied with Popper in London before rejecting the idea of a universal critical method.
Falsificationism: The view that scientific theories should face tests capable of showing them false. Feyerabend rejected falsification as a universal rule, arguing that scientists sometimes protect promising theories.
Science and democracy: The debate over how scientific expertise should relate to public judgment and political authority. Feyerabend argued that scientific institutions should not hold automatic authority over other forms of knowledge.

Linked from 6 pages