Paul Feyerabend was an anarchist philosopher, who gave us the catch-phrase âanything goesâ. First introduced in his ground breaking controversial book âAgainst Methodâ written in 1975. Indeed âanything goesâ became the mantra of succeeding generations in way and forms, one cannot sum up in one story or language.
By saying âanything goesâ Paul Feyerabend simply meant âto have no common measureâ. For example, there is no common measure between the lengths of the side and the diagonal of a square. There is no common measure between the âTheory Of Relativityâ (Albert Einstein) and the âString Theoryâ (Leonard Susskind) or birth of Radio Astronomy (Karl Jansky). Feyerabend argues that scientific achievements based on rationalism, superior technology and reductionist logic are great, yet they seldom sync (appear commensurate) when placed next to each other, instead many times they become counterproductive, needing constant validation or worse, censorship of new thoughts, questions and counter-intuitive methods. âScientific progress is an improving approximation to the truth.â (Thomas Kuhn)
Feyerabend believed that non-scientific cultures, indigenous traditions, methods, symbols and languages can stand on their own feet, and should be allowed to do so. He challenged the dominating nature of euro-centric validation, itâs unchecked power, sanguine as well as very dangerous, yet totally internalized like medieval religion, internalized within western culture, dialectics and intellectual discourse. âScience must be protected from ideologies and in turn democratic societies should be protected from science⌠clearly both have benefited immensely from each other⌠hence scientific research, policies and programs should be subject to public control and not the other way aroundâ (Against Method).
Merrily anarchistic, he encourages common people like you and me, to trust instinct, observation and imagination, like Galileo and Copernicus did, instead of being shoved down by existing taboos and cannons, because Feyerabend observed that eventually at a personal level, outside institutional thought and routine, âanything goesâ - as valid human behavior and at times âbetterâ than rational routine.
âOne view among manyâ
In his book Against Method, one of the most peculiar counter-intuitive arguments outlined by Feyerabend, is about the conflict within existing scientific theories as well as the illusion of fixed definitions and deductions. âYou can have reason and you can have science, but you cannot have both at the same timeâ. The statement begs investigation, especially because it sounds very contrary to mainstream science and itâs leading institutions and voices. The scientific pursuit to understand and control nature, at a dialectic level leads us to new discoveries and prospects as well as new problems and conflict. Which is good according to the author. As such, nature does not guide us to unique or correct things (and theories) and Feyerabend posits that the same relationship between human beings and well defined scientific validation. âThere must be a separation between science and state, just like there is a separation between religion and the stateâ (Against Method). In this context, science should be taught as âone view among manyâ and not as the âonlyâ road to truth and making sense of reality.
Like Thomas Kuhn, Karl Popper, ImrĂŠ Lakatos and Niels Bohr, as an intellectual oscillating between epistemology and anarchism, Feyerabendâs manifesto is a radical break away from mainstream scientific methods, instead inspiring us to move towards âA science which is opportunistic, creative, playful and perhaps unbound by any particular rule or method in undertaking scientific activityâ (Feyerabend 1977). âOne cannot simply stand outside of any particular scientific paradigm and make judgments about which one is better. Different paradigms are, therefore, incommensurable.â (The Collector Essays)
But âanything goesâ is not a directive. To fool and mislead us, to assume that âanything worksâ. History tells us, that certain thinkers either decided not to follow certain 'obvious' rules or they unwittingly broke them, hacked their way out of, only to discover new pathways (abandon past theories). Almost biographical, since Feyerabendâs father was a fan of Adolf Hitler and Paul was recruited as a âvolunteerâ by the Nazis in 1942. A time and place torn by apart by war and prejudice, where most of his non-conformist ideas and plans began to take shape, leading to his escape towards places and people, where his radical insights and theories would eventually bear fruit, cause new trouble and filter down to public imagination as âanything goesâ. Not bizarre then, that in 2011 Feyerabend shows up 8th on the list of âmost influential philosophers of scienceâ.
The result of a well planned train-of-thought being as virtous as arguments prompted by accidental encounters and personal observation, is a good counter to the arrogance and conviction of scientific thought and the experts serving one method, of a fixed mindset. Governing principles within science do not change (evolve) in a cumulative, drip-drip, steady sense, nor does scientific breakthrough. Rather, science evolves via sudden unpredictable events, call them ârevolutionsâ which consequently impact our lives and how we view our world. (Thomas Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions).
About firm, unchanging, absolute principles (the middle finger toâŚ)
Mid 19th century European artists were inspired by geometry and geometric aesthetics, which in turn inspired succeeding generations, setting up new possibilities, leading to new artistic exuberance and diversity (Dadaist art, Picasso, Man Ray, Andy Warhol, Marcel Duchamp etc). The fusion of contemporary art and geometry also caused a lot criticism and confusion amongst older artists and those who fostered and purchased âhigh artâ of that age (1850-1900). Sensory ethics and information was getting distorted. Earlier understood as two separate disciplines, fostered by protective structures, artists like Pete Modrian, Torres Garcia, Sol LeWitt and Kandinsky busted structural notions of the day. âUnpredictable character of the consequences of any given act or decision of men⌠a sudden deviation which sets the new order.â (Brecht 1928). Anything goes?
September 1959, astronauts hopped around on the surface of the moon for about 20 hours, marked in history as a stupendous achievement, also costing billions of dollars and an army of scientists and assistants on earth. Wow! but mystics for time immemorial, using only their minds and bodies, traversed beyond celestial bounds to experience the splendor of the âalmightyâ. As a rationalist you may reject this comparison as stupid, yet in our eternal quest to transcend beyond earthly bounds, we know that âanything goesâ.
In 1608 Galileo acquired an improved new telescope of Dutch make (Hans Lippershay) which allowed him to gaze deeper into space and some astronomical bodies. Galileo, much like Copernicus and Kepler was convinced, however contrary to what was believed by the experts and common people for a long time, that the earth and other planets were indeed spinning around the sun. But Ptolemyâs geocentric models and philosophy ruled the age, baptized by the elite and the Roman catholic church (Renaissance Italy). In August 1609, Galileo presented the telescope to Venetian lawmakers, the scientific community, clerics and select elites, as a ground breaking new invention. His new theories, discoveries and art, based on what he saw using the telescope, was swiftly rejected. Many astronomers simply refused to believe Galileoâs observations. The âfounder of modern scienceâ - Galileo fought with his peers furiously, about the utility of the telescope, let alone publish his new discoveries (and theories) about the earthâs daily rotation, kinematics and laws of motion. Regardless, Galileo is remembered today as a hero of âobservational astronomyâ and not those who vilified and arrested him, for his quest and conviction. Anything goes?
1970s, 80s, 90s electronic music and digital art are illustrative examples of deviation from fixed ideology, logic and form. No one planned it nor assumed credibility or leadership. A new landscape where hardware and software was embraced by emerging artists, most often in search of new meaning and possibilities within their realms of experimentation. For that era, and what amazing music, sound and imagery we can recall and appreciate, all were leaning towards subaltern throws of âanything goesâ.
A breakthrough occurs, however big or small, era defining or personal, when one develops compatibility between their observations, ideas leading to a consequent theory. However hilarious, absurd or groundbreaking. That compatibility is often temporal in nature, should be examined by those interested, and most importantly is progressive, as an attempt to increase knowledge. To lead a fuller and rewarding life even. Hence in our continuous attempt to discover the secrets of nature, the universe and of human beings, Feyerabend kindles our reductionist mindset by saying ââŚthe gradual rejection of universal standards and of all rigid traditions. Naturally, that also entails the rejection of a large part of contemporary science⌠especially the terribly rigid mindset.â
Overall, Against Method is anarchist, as congruent as suggestive, to scientists and non-scientists alike, by saying âovercome the chauvinism of science that resists alternatives to the status quo.â The philosopher is urging us all to explore, leap if needed, form a relation between idea and action, regardless of the given rules. A state of mind that does not inhibit everyday progress is: âanything goesâ đ đ đ