1.7: Epistemological Anarchy & Research

Source of Knowledge

Traditionally, science is considered the source of knowledge.

Demarcation Problem

Attempts like verifiability, confirmability, and falsifiability failed as absolute criteria for what counts as science.

Epistemological Anarchism (Feyerabend)

Critiques the idea of one universal scientific method; opposes science monopoly on knowledge.

Theory-Ladenness of Observation

Observations depend on theories; there are no “objective facts.”

Feyerabend Slogan “Against Method”

Opposes methodological dogmatism in science.

Feyerabend Slogan “Anything Goes”

Any method (science, magic, religion) can produce knowledge.

Knowledge as Alternatives

Feyerabend: competing, incommensurable systems (e.g., evolution vs creationism) all count as knowledge.

Freedom of Methodology

Science should not dominate curricula; students should study alternative knowledge systems.

Criticism of Feyerabend

Leads to relativism: all truths are equal and context-bound; self-contradictory and allows “alternative facts.”

Problems with Relativism & Constructivism

Incommensurability: paradigms cannot be compared. Self-contradiction: “truth is relative” cannot be universally true. Practical absurdity: teaching “rainmaking by dance” as science.

Dogmatic Falsificationism

Naive view: empirical facts are infallible; wrong because observations are theory-laden.

Methodological Falsificationism (Popper)

Accepts theory-ladenness but assumes background theories.

Sophisticated Falsificationism (Lakatos)

A theory T is falsified only if a new theory T′ has greater empirical content, explains T’s successes, and has corroborated predictions.

Research Program (Lakatos)

Scientists work within research programs: similar to Kuhn’s paradigms.

Hard Core of Research Program

Fundamental assumptions not easily abandoned.

Protective Belt of Research Program

Auxiliary hypotheses that can be adjusted to solve anomalies.

Heuristics in Research Programs

Methods to find solutions: negative heuristic protects hard core; positive heuristic modifies protective belt.

Progressive Research Program

Explains more and predicts new confirmed facts (e.g., medicine).

Degenerative Research Program

Adds ad hoc fixes without progress (e.g., astrology, sorcery).

Demarcation Criteria (Lakatos)

Falsifiability, working within a research program, progressiveness, and abandonment of degenerative programs.

Kuhn vs Lakatos

Kuhn: science changes via descriptive paradigm shifts. Lakatos: research programs allow rational comparison and progress (normative).

Psychology as Science

If theories are falsifiable and part of progressive research programs → scientific; replication crisis suggests some subfields may be degenerative.

Feyerabend & Kuhn

Relativism/constructivistm→ problematic.

Lakatos

Strengthens Popper’s falsificationism and restores rational scientific progress.

Positive Heuristic

Change the protective belt of a research program when observations conflict with the theory.

Sokal Hoax

Show postmodern social sciences lack scientific standards

Lakatos’ Demarcation Criteria

Falsifiable Progressive Research Program