In this blog post, based on Feyerabend’s argument and the criticism thereof, we explore whether scientific methodology suppresses individual freedom or, on the contrary, guarantees it.
There was a time when “philosophy of science” referred to scientific methodology that attempted logical analysis of scientific methods such as induction and deduction, as well as hypotheses, theories, laws, and verification. In order to maintain the academic nature of science, it focused on describing experiences through experiments, observations, and statistical surveys, along with logical and mathematical methods. This was because the philosophy of science in the first half of the 20th century was strongly influenced by British empiricism and centered on the ideas of “logical positivism” and “logical empiricism.” However, in the latter half of the 20th century, scientists began to raise more fundamental questions, one of whom was Paul Feyerabend. Like anarchism, which rejects all institutionalized political organizations, power, and social authority, Feyerabend’s position argues that all methodological coercion within science must be eliminated. More specifically, he argues that just as our ancestors freed us from the shackles of religion, which they believed to be the only truth, we must free society from the shackles of ideology that has been imposed by methodological coercion. This argument is supported by the claim that this will increase individual freedom and, in a broader context, promote the individual freedom to choose science or other forms of knowledge.
However, it seems necessary to discuss whether simply eliminating all methodological coercion within science will increase the freedom of individuals dealing with science. This is because the freedom that can be gained by removing scientific methodology, as claimed by Feyerabend, is nothing more than “freedom in the absence of coercion.” It is necessary to discuss whether this can promote the freedom of individuals to choose science or other forms of knowledge, and whether methodological coercion within science will have a positive effect on individual freedom. Furthermore, as Feyerabend denied, it is necessary to discuss what authority science can have when compared to other forms of knowledge.
Before proceeding to a full-fledged discussion, let us take a closer look at the anarchist aspects of anarchism and Feyerabend’s arguments. Anarchism is a philosophy that rejects the existence of government and desires no form of political authority, considering it unnecessary. The most important sociopsychological basis of anarchism is the belief that humans are social and cooperative rather than selfish and competitive. Anarchists desire unlimited freedom and are characterized by their opposition to any form of political or religious authority and their vision of a free cooperative society, as Marxism aims for a classless, unorganized communist society after the so-called revolution. Just as anarchism argues that the government suppresses individual freedom through political authority, Feyerabend’s theory argues that the methodological constraints of science infringe on individual scientific freedom. Therefore, Feyerabend does not recognize the methodology of science as a set of rules that govern the activities of scientists. He also advocates a scientific society based on unlimited individual freedom.
Feuerabend argued that individual freedom is guaranteed in the absence of constraints, i.e., science without rules. However, this limits freedom to a state of “no constraints” and overlooks the positive aspects of constraints. What Feyerabend is trying to convey is that everyone should follow their own preferences without being restricted by any rules such as methodology, and that they should do their own work (Feyerabend expresses this as “anything goes”). At first glance, this seems to increase individual freedom. However, in reality, it means that science will stagnate. In his book What Is Science?, American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman wrote that scientific debate and discussion are the best ways to explore the world, and that it is humanity’s responsibility to develop answers to problems through this process and pass them on to future generations. If all scientists act only according to their own preferences, they will not be able to fulfill their responsibility to humanity, which is to develop answers to problems through debate and discussion, as he pointed out. This situation leads to stagnation in science and makes it easy for those already in power to maintain their power. This means that it becomes difficult for scientific progress that overturns the existing dominant view of science through methods such as logical positivism and falsificationism to occur. Therefore, scientific stagnation caused by the absence of rules infringes on the freedom of individuals who advocate non-dominant scientific views. Just as anarchists oppose any form of authority and envision a free cooperative society through such unlimited freedom, Feyerabend’s claim that the absence of scientific rules, such as methodology, can lead to cooperation among scientists is contradictory. In order to bring about cooperation among scientists, some kind of rules are needed to give power to either dominant or non-dominant claims, and through consultation and discussion among scientists (bringing about cooperation among scientists), scientific progress can be achieved.
Let us consider whether scientific methodology can serve as such rules. Feyerabend argues that the methodology of research programs provides standards that can help evaluate the historical circumstances in which scientists make decisions, but does not include rules that tell scientists what to do. The statement that they are standards and not rules means what Feyerabend said earlier, “anything goes.” As discussed above, this causes confusion in science and infringes on individual freedom. Therefore, for the sake of individual freedom, methodology must be both a standard and a rule.
Furthermore, Feyerabend did not recognize not only methodological constraints but also the superiority of science over other forms of knowledge. Just as scientists are not bound by methodological constraints and claim that “anything goes,” it is wrong to exclude magic and astrology by appealing to universal standards of scientificity or rationality. If we want to know what the purpose and methods of a form of knowledge are, and to what extent it has achieved that purpose, we must study that form of knowledge. However, we cannot be sure that magic and astrology have well-defined purposes and methods for achieving those purposes. On the other hand, as I argued in the previous two points, science can be evaluated through a set of rules called methodology. Even if methodology is not recognized as a rule, it can be recognized as a standard that can be evaluated historically, as Feyerabend argued, and thus the achievements of science can be evaluated. In this respect, science can be considered superior to other forms of knowledge that cannot be evaluated. We cannot accept something that cannot be evaluated simply because it cannot be evaluated, i.e., because there is no reason to exclude it.
We have examined the arguments made by Feyerabend, who based his theory on anarchism, and those who defend scientific methodology. Since freedom has the attribute of being “unrestricted,” it is possible to talk about the guarantee of individual freedom in a situation where there are no rules, but the existence of rules does not necessarily suppress individual freedom. Rules prevent scientific stagnation, which leads to scientific cooperation and guarantees individual freedom. Therefore, it cannot be said that eliminating rules will increase individual freedom. Science has rules in the form of methodology, which prevent scientific stagnation and guarantee individual scientific freedom. Furthermore, science is evaluated based on these rules, and it can be said that it is superior to other forms of knowledge that cannot be evaluated. Considering “science that guarantees individual freedom” is important in terms of realizing “freedom,” which is an important concept in modern society. Discussions on the advancement of science and individual freedom must continue in the future.
