




































JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY-4TH-EDITION (AQUINO)-2022


Abstract

This article focuses on an evaluation of Paul Feyerabend's anarchistic approach in 
philosophy of science. Feyerabend advocated for anarchism in science which encourages 
plurality of methods in scientific investigations. His anarchistic approach was a source of 
great controversy among contemporary philosophers of science because of its 
revolutionary nature. The basic questions are: What does Feyerabend mean by 
anarchistic approach in scientific investigation? Does such contradict the nature of 
science as an organized and systematic enterprise? Has Feyerabend's anarchism any 
implication for scientific methodology and progress? What are the strengths and 
weaknesses of Feyerabend's anarchistic approach in philosophy of science? In the bid to 
address these and other related issues, this article employs analytical and hermeneutical 
methods of philosophical investigation to examine the intricacies of Feyerabend's 
anarchism in philosophy of science. The researcher argues that though Feyerabend's 
anarchism elicited criticisms from some philosophers of science because of its 
controversial nature, Feyerabend contributed immensely towards the development of 
knowledge in contemporary philosophy of science. This article maintains that despite the 
loopholes and shortcomings of Feyerabend's anarchism in philosophy of science, it is an 
invitation for scientists to discover and explore many new methods of scientific 
investigation.

Keywords:  Science, Anarchism, Philosophy and Method

INTRODUCTION

Paul Feyerabend is one of the influential philosophers of science. He made enormous and 
remarkable contributions towards the development of philosophy of science in the 
contemporary period. Among his remarkable contributions in contemporary philosophy 
of science is his anarchistic approach. Anarchism is quite unique, and it appears very 
strange in matters that concern scientific investigation. His idea of anarchism in the 
domain of philosophy of science is very controversial. Such controversy is basically 
because of the fact that it seems to contradict the nature of science as a systematic, 
methodic as well as organized discipline.  The fundamental questions are: What is 
anarchism? How does Feyerabend apply it in the domain of philosophy of science? What 
are the implications of Feyerabend's anarchistic approach to scientific methodology and 
progress? What are the problems associated with Feyerabend's anarchistic approach in 
philosophy of science? What are the positive aspects of Feyerabend's anarchism? These 

AN EVALUATION OF PAUL FEYERABEND'S ANARCHICAL 
APPROACH IN PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE

Bonaventure Chike ANETOH, Ph.D.

11

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 2 Issue 1 2022-June
ISSN: 2786-9792



and other related issues are to be given scholarly as well as detailed attention in this 
article.

This article is partitioned into three sections. The first section analyses the concept of 
anarchism in general. The second section examines Paul Feyerabend's anarchistic 
approach in philosophy of science. The third section centres on the evaluation as well as 
conclusion of the article.

 THE CONCEPT OF ANARCHISM

The term 'anarchism' is the key concept in this article. This section of the article focuses on 
the clarification and analysis of the concept of anarchism. Obviously, clarification of the 
concept of anarchism enables one to understand as well as appreciate Feyerabend's 
anarchistic approach in philosophy of science. 

Basically, the term 'anarchism' is most commonly used in the political domain. 
Etymologically, it was derived from the Greek word 'an archos' meaning 'no government'. 
From etymological perspective, it means quest for absence of government. It has to do 
with the desire for absence of law as well as desire for freedom in a political setting. 
Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English (2000) describes anarchism as 
“the political belief that laws and government are not necessary.”(p.36) Hence, it could be 
said that anarchism is a system that desires for freedom in the strict sense of it. In a similar 
way, Cambridge English Dictionary defines anarchism as “the political belief that there 
should be little or no formal or official organization to society but that people should work 
freely together”. It becomes clear that anarchism desires for a type of society that is very 
similar to Thomas Hobbes' 'state of nature' in which people were allowed to do whatever 
pleased them. In agreement with the above definitions, Fiala (2021) defines anarchism 
thus:

Anarchism is a political theory that is skeptical of the 
justification of authority and power. Anarchism is usually 
grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual 
liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. 
Anarchism also offers a positive theory of human flourishing, 
based upon an ideal of equality, community and non-coercive 
consensus building. Anarchism has inspired practical efforts at 
establishing utopian communities, radical and revolutionary 
political agenda and various forms of direct action. (para. 1)

Anarchism is revolutionary in nature and it emphasizes mainly on human freedom as well 
as absence of law. An anarchist prizes his freedom above every other thing, and despises 
law as much as possible. Elaborating further on the meaning of anarchism and bringing 
out very clearly the views of some anarchists, Sterba (1999) states:

It maintains that no coercive institutions are justified. 
Proudhon, the first self-described anarchist, believed that 
coercive institutions should be replaced by social and 
economic organizations based on voluntary contractual 
agreement, and he advocated peaceful change toward 

12

Anetoh             An Evaluation Of Paul Feyerabend's Anarchical Approach In Philosophy ...



anarchism. Others, notably Blanqui ana Bakunin, advocated 
the use of violence to destroy the power of coercive 
institutions.(p.628)

, but insists that there are no overriding rules in science. In his words: From the foregoing, 
it is clear that anarchism is basically obtainable in political dimension. However, it is also 
applied in other dimensions of life. It is now fashionable to talk of religious anarchism, 
ethical anarchism, scientific anarchism etc. However, the concern of this article is 
basically the employment of anarchism in the domain of philosophy of science. Paul 
Feyerabend championed scientific anarchism. In fact, he advocated for anarchistic 
approach in scientific investigation. Hence, this article focuses on evaluating Paul 
Feyerabend's anarchistic approach in scientific investigation.

FEYERABEND'S ANARCHISTIC APPROACH IN PHILOSOPHY OF 
SCIENCE

Science is generally conceived as a methodic and systematic investigation of phenomena. 
Such systematic investigation enables science to offer explanations of phenomena in the 
world, and as well predict future occurrences. The method of scientific investigation is 
one of the issues that have pre-occupied the attention of philosophers of science. Paul 
Feyerabend is among the contemporary philosophers of science that have given serious 
attention to the method of scientific investigation. He advocated for anarchistic approach 
in scientific investigation, and maintains that such approach is necessary for scientific 
progress. Feyerabend (1981) argues that “There is no method according to the most 
advanced and sophisticated methodology in existence today” (p.161). However, 
Feyerabend admits that science is systematic in approach just like other ideologies

Science often proceeds systematically, but so do other 
ideologies (just consult the records of the many doctrinal 
debates that took place in the church) and, besides, there are 
no overriding rules which are adhered to under any 
circumstances; there is no 'scientific methodology' that can 
be used to separate science from the rest. Science is just one 
of the many ideologies that propel society and it should be 
treated as such .(Feyerabend, 1981, p.162)

He denies the existence of scientific methodology that distinguishes science from other 
ideologies. This denial contradicts the popular view that science employs unique 
approach in its investigation of phenomena in the world. However, such denial paved way 
for Feyerabend's introduction of his anarchistic approach in scientific investigation.  
Feyerabend (1984) argues that science is anarchistic, and such anarchism encourages 
progress. According to him: “Science is an essentially anarchistic enterprise: theoretical 
anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-
order alternatives.” (p.53) This implies that there is no need to maintain specific laws in 
scientific investigation. The quest for non-maintenance of specific laws in scientific 
investigation is the essence of Feyerabend's anarchistic approach. He values anarchism 
and holds it in a very high esteem in the domain of science. Hence, Feyerabend (1984) 
maintains that anarchism “is certainly excellent medicine for epistemology and for the 

13

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 2 Issue 1 2022-June
ISSN: 2786-9792



philosophy of science.” (p.53) It follows from the foregoing that Feyerabend has high 
regard for anarchistic approach, and thus insists on its employment in scientific 
investigation. This entails that it is not necessary to create a scientific tradition that is 
governed by strict rules. He offers two reasons for this position thus:

There are two reasons why such an answer seems to be 
appropriate. The first reason is that the world which we want 
to explore is a largely unknown entity. We must, therefore, 
keep our options open and we must not restrict ourselves in 
advance. Epistemological prescriptions may look splendid 
when compared with other epistemological prescriptions or 
with general principles- but who can guarantee that they are 
the best way to discover, not just a few isolated “facts”, but 
also some deep-lying secrets of nature? The second reason is 
that a scientific education as described above… cannot be 
reconciled with a humanitarian attitude. It is in conflict “with 
the cultivation of individuality which alone produces, or can 
produce, well-developed human beings”, it “maims by 
compression, like a Chinese lady's foot, every part of human 
nature which stands out prominently, and tends to make a 
person markedly different in outline” from the ideals of 
rationality that happen to be fashionable in science, or in the 
philosophy of science. The attempt to increase liberty, to lead 
to a full and rewarding life, and the corresponding attempt to 
discover the secrets of nature and of man entails, therefore, 
the rejection of all universal standards and of all rigid 
traditions ( Feyerabend, 1984, pp.55-56)

Feyerabend's advocacy for anarchism in scientific investigation is rooted in his belief that 
the  world is unknown, and as such we do not need rigid laws or methods in the attempt to 
explore the world. It becomes logical from Feyerabend's perspective to apply varied 
methods in the investigation and exploration of the unknown world. Furthermore, it may 
not be easy to prove that the adopted laws or methods of investigation are actually the 
best. Hence, the acclaimed method of scientific investigation may not actually be the best. 
Basically, Feyerabend is opting for liberty in scientific investigation, which for him, is 
necessary for scientific progress. Restrictions through laws may not aid scientific 
progress, but may rather impede such progress. 

It is certain that Feyerabend has little or no regard for laws in scientific investigations. 
This explains why he opts for anarchism in science. There are some activities that are 
associated with professional anarchists in science. Such activities distinguish them and 
make them unique in the domain of science. Feyerabend (1984) articulates such activities 
thus:

Professional anarchists oppose any kind of restriction, and 
they demand that the individual be permitted to develop 

14

Anetoh             An Evaluation Of Paul Feyerabend's Anarchical Approach In Philosophy ...



freely, unhampered by laws, duties or obligations. And yet 
they swallow without protest all the severe standards which 
scientists and logicians impose upon research and upon any 
kind of knowledge-creating and knowledge-changing 
activity. Occasionally, the laws of scientific method or what 
are thought to be the laws of scientific method by a 
particular writer, are even integrated into anarchism itself. 
(p. 56) 

Thus, he upholds anarchistic methodology as well as an anarchistic science. It could be 
argued that lack of laws in anarchistic science will lead to chaos, and such may not 
encourage progress. Contrary to this, Feyerabend argues that the reduced regard for law 
and order in anarchistic science will not lead to chaos. Consequently, he insists that “The 
only principle that does not inhibit progress is: anything goes” (Feyerabend, 1984, p.57). 
This implies that anything is possible in scientific investigations. 

He further argues that there is no rule in science that is not at times violated, and such 
violation is necessary for scientific progress and growth of knowledge in general. 
Contrary to Feyerabend's argument, it ought to be noted that the fact that rules are at times 
violated in science does not in any way imply that rules are not necessary in scientific 
investigations. It is difficult to see any sector of life where rules are not at times violated. 
However, Feyerabend insists that scientists should be free in their scientific 
investigations, and not restrict themselves to strict rules. According to him:

We find then, that there is not a single rule, however plausible 
and however firmly grounded in epistemology, that is not 
violated at some time or other. It becomes evident that such 
violations are not accidental events, they are not results of 
insufficient knowledge or of inattention which might have been 
avoided. On the contrary, we see that they are necessary for 
progress. Indeed, one of the most striking features of recent 
discussions in the history and philosophy of science is the 
realization that events and developments, such as the invention 
of atomism in antiquity, the Copernican Revolution, the rise of 
modern atomism (kinetic theory, dispersion theory, 
stereochemistry, quantum theory), the gradual emergence of the 
wave theory of light, occurred only because some thinkers either 
decided not to be bound by certain “obvious” methodological 
rules, or because they unwittingly broke them (Feyerabend, 
1984, p.57)

The implication of Feyerabend's argument is that there are certain conditions when it is 
necessary not to obey rules, or even to contradict the rules completely in scientific 
investigations. Neglect of rules and contradiction of rules are essential aspects of 
Feyerabend's anarchism. Such neglect of rules are at times necessitated by certain 
circumstances in scientific investigation. Elaborating on the circumstances that can 
necessitate the neglect or violation of rules, Feyerabend (1984) states: 

15

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 2 Issue 1 2022-June
ISSN: 2786-9792



…there are always circumstances when it is advisable not only to 
ignore the rule, but to adopt its opposite. For example there are 
circumstances when it is advisable to introduce, elaborate, and 
defend ad hoc hypotheses, or hypotheses which contradict well-
established and generally accepted experimental results, or 
hypotheses whose content is smaller than the content of the 
existing and empirically adequate alternative, or self-
inconsistent hypotheses, and so on. (pp.57-58)

The point Feyerabend tries to emphasize is that it is needless sticking to the traditional 
method of scientific investigations. There is always need to explore new ways of 
scientific investigations. Such plurality of methods is better than strict adherence to one 
particular method. This idea expresses and articulates the anarchistic approach that 
Feyerabend is advocating for in scientific investigation.

In fact, Feyerabend sees anarchism as the only principle that is defensible in all situations, 
and insists that it is necessary for scientific progress. He argues that “a law-and-order 
science will succeed only if anarchistic moves are occasionally allowed to take place.” 
(Feyerabend, 1984, p.60) This implies that the successfulness of law- and-order science 
is dependent on anarchism, which is a necessary pre-requisite for scientific investigation. 
Anarchism in science, for Feyerabend, is quite better than law and order-based science. 
From this perspective, science that is based on law and order can only be fruitful if it is 
punctuated with anarchism. Hence, scientific investigation cannot do without anarchism, 
and such is a necessary condition for scientific progress. Analysing Paul Feyerabend's 
anarchism, Broad (1989) states:

Feyerabend argues that science does not proceed according to a 
rational method. If there has been progress, it is only because 
working scientists have broken every principle in the rationalist's 
rule book and have adopted the motto “anything goes”. The pool 
of resulting theories has increased, but individual theories are not 
consistent with one another. (p.534) 

From the foregoing, it is obvious that, for Feyerabend, the principle of 'anything goes' 
becomes the underlying principle of scientific investigation, and as such, every scientific 
investigation ought to adopt such principle. Tsou (2003) brings out very clearly the two 
different but related interpretations or rather versions of Feyerabend's anarchism in 
philosophy of science, which are supported by history of science thus: 

Feyerabend's anarchism, then, consists in two substantive 
claims: (1) science is accurately characterized as an anarchistic 
enterprise, and (2) science should be an anarchistic enterprise. 
The first claim is a descriptive claim regarding the nature of the 
history of science, while the second is a prescriptive claim on 
how science ought to proceed. In order to support both of these 
claims, Feyerabend appeals to the history of science, focusing on 
physical theories from Newtonian mechanics to wave 
mechanics. (p.209)

16

Anetoh             An Evaluation Of Paul Feyerabend's Anarchical Approach In Philosophy ...



These two versions of Feyerabend's anarchism are quite related, and they communicate 
the same message, viz. the centrality of anarchism in scientific investigation. Tsou 
(2003) further argues that Feyerabend, in his anarchistic science, is advocating for the 
principle of theoretical pluralism in scientific investigation. This is quite correct based on 
Feyerabend's insistence that one particular method is not adequate for scientific 
investigations. Hence, there is strong need for the exploration of many alternatives in 
scientific investigations. According to Tsou (2003):

In prescribing anarchism as a defensible principle for science to 
follow, Feyerabend is urging for a science that follows a 
principle of theoretical pluralism. Specifcally, Feyerabend is 
calling for a science that follows a principle of proliferation, i.e., 
a science that is organized to require the continuous generation 
of alternatives. This perspective is premised on the idea that the 
only process of scientifc change that can produce genuinely 
objective knowledge requires a context that encourages a 
plurality of theories and methods. A context that discourages 
theoretical pluralism (viz., theoretical monism), by contrast, 
tends to promote both dogmatism and a self-fulfilling 
confirmation of received views. (p. 210)

It is certain from the above that Feyerabend champions theoretical and methodological 
pluralism in science. Such, for him, discourages rigidity in science. Tsou (2003) 
demonstrates a very good knowledge of Feyerabend's anarchism. This is evident in his 
scholarly analysis of Feyerabend's anarchistic approach in philosophy of science. 
Elaborating further the intricacies of Feyerabend's major thesis in this regard, he states: 

I have presented Feyerabend's anarchism as the normative 
suggestion that a context of methodological and theoretical 
pluralism should be encouraged for the sake of the progress of 
scientific knowledge. This suggestion is premised on a minimal 
assumption of realism (viz., the methodological assumption that 
scientific theories should be “interpreted realistically” because 
theories, to some extent, accurately describe aspects of reality) 
and the idea that there is no fixed method or fixed theory of 
rationality that will always provide beneficial results for science. 
It is important to recognize that Feyerabend's anarchism does not 
reject method or rationality… As such, the anarchist maxim of 
“anything goes” is not a positive recommendation of 
“hedonism” (as Feyerabend sometimes SSjokingly referred to it) 
for science, nor does it encompass the claim that all forms of 
knowing… are equally legitimate. Rather “anything goes” is 
Feyerabend's iconoclastic way of emphasizing that sustained 
criticism and deviations from accepted scientific rules are both 
reasonable and absolutely necessary for the growth of scientific 

17

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 2 Issue 1 2022-June
ISSN: 2786-9792



knowledge (McMullin 1988, pp. 7–10). This potential benefit of 
methodological and theoretical pluralism, Feyerabend believes, 
is evidenced most prominently by cases of “revolutionary 
science.” (pp.223-224)

It follows that Feyerabend is completely against dogmatism with regard to the method of 
scientific investigation. Hence, no specific method of scientific investigation should be 
accepted as a 'dogma'. At this juncture, Feyerabend seems to agree with Karl Popper that 
science should be anti-dogmatic.  Popper argues that scientists ought to be critical as well 
as anti-dogmatic, and thus champions the idea of 'critical rationalism in science. 
However, it ought to be noted that Feyerabend's anti-dogmatism is mainly concerned 
with the method of scientific investigation. No 'method' should be held tenaciously as the 
only method of scientific investigation. 

Furthermore, Feyerabend seems to agree with Thomas Kuhn's 'revolutionary science' as 
opposed to 'normal science by maintaining that 'revolutionary science' gives evidence to 
methodological as well as theoretical pluralism in science. Also, Feyerabend, just like 
Thomas  Kuhn and quite unlike logical positivists, has high regard for the history of 
science and at the same time acknowledges its importance in scientific investigations. 
This explains why he maintains that anarchism is supported by the history of science. He 
further argues that:

Standards compete just as theories compete and we choose 
the standards most appropriate to the historical situation in 
which the choice occurs. The rejected alternatives (theories, 
standards: facts) are not eliminated. They serve as 
correctives (after all, we may have made the wrong choice) 
and they also explain the content of the preferred 
views…Knowledge so conceived is an ocean of alternatives 
channeled and subdivided by an ocean of standards. 
(Feyerabend, 1981, p. 159)   

Thus far, the researcher has given scholarly attention to the analysis of Feyerabend's 
anarchistic approach in philosophy of science. Such approach appears revolutionary in 
nature. This stems from the fact that it questions and contradicts what seems to be the 
traditional method of scientific research.

EVALUATION   

Feyerabend's anarchism in scientific investigation is actually very controversial. It 
elicited severe criticisms from different scholars and philosophers of science. Some 
scholars condemn Feyerabend's approach to science, and thus criticized him very 
strongly, while some scholars argue that his approach may be beneficial to the nature of 
science. Treiblmaier (2018) attests to this thus:

Being one of the most controversial epistemologists and not 
shying away from pointed criticism, Feyerabend has experienced 
a lot of rejection as well as appreciation, but his ideas have not led 

18

Anetoh             An Evaluation Of Paul Feyerabend's Anarchical Approach In Philosophy ...



to the emergence of a dedicated school of followers. This is not 
surprising since his “epistemological anarchism”, which 
propagates openness and flexibility, makes it hard to directly 
derive specific guidelines regarding best practices on how to 
conduct research. However, his approach has been labeled as an 
“antidote to the totalitarian tendencies of modern science” 
(Spariosu 1989, p. 300) and we believe that it allows for the critical 
investigation of the foundations of any research community. 
(p.12)

It is certain that the criticisms given against Feyerabend's anarchistic approach were as a 
result of the controversial nature of his thesis and approach. His approach contradicted 
completely the fundamental assumption of scientists with regard to the method of 
scientific research. Treiblmaier (2018) notes that Feyerabend “was labeled the “worst 
enemy of science” (p.2). This is due to his principle of 'anything goes' which he upholds 
in the scientific world. It doesn't seem to the researcher that it is right to label Feyerabend 
the 'worst enemy of science'. It ought to be noted that his anarchistic approach is not 
meant to destroy science, but rather to open up more avenues and methods of scientific 
investigations.

 Another scholar that criticized Feyerabend's anarchism is Tsou (2003). He was 
dissatisfied with Feyerabend's anarchistic approach, and thus argued that his anarchism 
will not bring about a more objective scientific knowledge. According to him:

If one takes Feyerabend seriously on his own (somewhat sobered) 
terms, one criticism that can be raised against Feyerabend's 
recommendation of anarchism is that anarchistic science, 
characterized primarily by proliferation and rule-breaking, would 
not necessarily lead to a better or “more objective” scientific 
knowledge. (Tsou, 2003, p.224)

Certainly, Tsou (2003) based this criticism on Thomas Kuhn's argument that normal 
science which is characterized by fidelity to the rules and method of the prevailing 
paradigm can give rise to revolutionary science which brings about scientific progress. 
The researcher argues that Tsou (2003) seems to neglect the fact that proliferation as well 
as plurality of method may enable scientists make more scientific discoveries.

 Most other criticisms given against Feyerabend's anarchism by other scholars revolve 
around complete neglect of the traditional method of scientific investigations. Such 
criticisms are quite expected because his anarchism challenged the traditional 
assumptions of science. As was already stated in this article, Feyerabend argues that the 
only defensible approach to science is 'anything goes'. It could be argued that such 
approach robs science of its systematic and methodic approach to investigation of 
realities. Traditionally, science has its unique qualities that distinguish it from other 
disciplines.  Brain and Anderson (2021) articulate such qualities thus: 

Among the activities often identified as characteristic of science are 
systematic observation and experimentation, inductive and deductive 
reasoning, and the formation and testing of hypotheses and theories. 

19

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 2 Issue 1 2022-June
ISSN: 2786-9792



How these are carried out in detail can vary greatly, but characteristics 
like these have been looked to as a way of demarcating scientific activity 
from non-science, where only enterprises which employ some canonical 
form of scientific method or methods should be considered 
science…(para. 1)

Science is empirical in nature and its approach to investigation of phenomena in the 
universe is fundamentally systematic in approach. Such has enabled science to achieve 
many verifiable discoveries which have improved human condition of existence in the 
world.  By opting for anarchistic approach in scientific investigation, Feyerabend is 
advocating for something that is alien to the practice of scientific investigation. Such 
anarchistic approach may lead to unverifiable results and chaos in scientific research. 
Anarchism ought not be the method of scientific investigation. Such stifles science of its 
unique systematic as well as verifiable approach to investigation of phenomena in the 
universe. 

Despite the above criticisms, Tsou (2003) acknowledged that Feyerabend's anarchism is 
beneficial to the nature of science. Thus, he states:

Although Feyerabend was no apologist for science and his arguments against 
scientific method have often been perceived as “anti-scientific,” it is clear that 
Feyerabend's anarchism is presented in promotion of better science and a more 
accurate perspective for understanding the nature of the sciences (p.208). 

Obviously, Feyerabend's anarchism is revolutionary in nature. This explains why it was 
criticized by many scholars. However, his anarchistic approach which encourages 
plurality of methods is an invitation for scientists to discover many new methods of 
scientific investigation. It ought to be noted that his approach may be beneficial in 
discovering new avenues and methods of scientific enquiry. 

CONCLUSION

 Effort has been made in this article to evaluate Paul Feyerabend's anarchistic approach in 
philosophy of science. Feyerabend is one of the renowned scholars in contemporary 
philosophy of science. His anarchistic approach in philosophy of science is one of his 
remarkable contributions in contemporary philosophy of science. As it is very clear in this 
article, he argues consistently that the only defensible approach in science is 'anything 
goes'. Obviously, his anarchistic approach is very controversial because of its 
revolutionary nature. It is obvious from the discourse in this article that though 
Feyerabend's anarchism elicited criticisms from some philosophers of science because of 
its controversial nature, Feyerabend contributed immensely towards the development of 
knowledge in contemporary philosophy of science. He actually broadened the 
understanding of science in the contemporary era. This article concludes that despite the 
shortcomings of Feyerabend's anarchism in philosophy of science, his unique as well as 
strange approach is an encouragement for scientists to discover and explore many new 
methods of scientific investigation.

20

Anetoh             An Evaluation Of Paul Feyerabend's Anarchical Approach In Philosophy ...



References

Brain, H. and Andersen H. (2021) 'Scientific method', The Stanford encyclopedia of 
philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from URL=https://plato. stanford.edu/ 
archives/sum2021/entries/scientific-method/> (13/11/21).

Broad, W. J., (1989) 'Paul Feyerabend: Science and the anarchist', Science vol. 206, 
Issue 4418. Retrieved from https://science. sciencemag. org/ content /206/4418 
(20/03/22).

Cambridge English Dictionary, Retrieved from 
cambridge.org/dictionary/ english /anarchism (13/03/22).

Feyerabend P. (1984) 'Against method'. In Richard H. Popkin & Avrum Stroll(eds)  
Philosophy and contemporary problems :A reader,New York: CBS College 
Publishing.

Feyerabend, P. (1981) 'How to defend society against science'. In Ian Hacking(ed.) 
Scientific revolutions, (pp.156-167) New York: Oxford University Press 

Fiala.  A., (2021), 'Anarchism', The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, Edward .N. 
Zalta (ed.), URL=<https://plato. stanford.edu/archives /win2021 /entries/ anarchism/> 
(13/11/21)

th
Hornby, A. S., (2000) Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English 6  
ed., New York: Oxford University Press.

Sterba, J.P., (1999), 'Political philosophy', The cambridge dictionary of philosophy, 
Robert Audi (ed) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Treiblmaier, H. (2018) Paul Feyerabend and the art of epistemological anarchy- A 
discussion of the basic tenets of against method and an assessment of their potential 
usefulness. Retrieved from htpps://www.researchgate 
.net/publication/325373744_ThePhilosopher%275_corner_Paul_Feyerabend_and 
_the_Art_of_Epistemological_Anarchy.(26/08/21)

Tsou, J.Y. (2003) 'Reconsidering Feyerabend's “Anarchism” Perspectives on          
science, vol. 11, no 2. Retrieved from https://www.mitpressjournals.org (09/06/21).

Voit, E. O. (2019), Perspective:  Dimensions of the scientific method. Retrieved from 
https://journals.plos.org/ ploscombiol /article?id=10.1371 /journal. pcb. 1007279 
(10/03/22).

https://dictionary

21

                                            Aquino Journal of Philosophy, Vol 2 Issue 1 2022-June
ISSN: 2786-9792

https://dictionary

	Page 1
	Page 2
	Page 3
	Page 4
	Page 5
	Page 6
	Page 7
	Page 8
	Page 9
	Page 10
	Page 11

