Feyerabend, Paul. 1999. “Theses on Anarchism.” In For and Against Method. Chicago University of Chicago Press.

Paul Feyerabend formulated these theses as a rough draft for a conference scheduled for March 20, 1973.
The conference was intended to critique Lakatos's defense of "Law and Order" from an anarchist standpoint.
Feyerabend enclosed these theses in a letter to Lakatos dated February 1973, expressing his preparation for the debate.
He humorously implies the effort is to make Lakatos prepared for an easy intellectual combat, likening excessive preparation to overtraining for a boxing match.
A slightly refined version of these theses appeared in Feyerabend's works from 1975 and 1996.

Anarchism opposes the existing societal order, either seeking to destroy it or escape from it.
Political anarchists specifically challenge political institutions, while religious anarchists may oppose the physical world they view as lower in value.
Both factions often hold dogmatic beliefs regarding what is true or good for humanity.

Post-Enlightenment political anarchism relies on faith in science and the natural rationality of humans.
**Concepts:
- Removal of Boundaries:** It is believed that once boundaries are removed, natural reason will guide individuals to appropriate conclusions.
- Educational Methods: Absence of educational structures is thought to enable self-education.
- Political Institutions: Without political frameworks, individuals will form associations that reflect their inherent tendencies, cultivating a harmonious existence.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, science played a revolutionary role that progressively dismantled previous societal structures.
Anarchists recognized the destructive power of science against established norms and knowledge, leading to the creation of a new type of knowledge considered beneficial for humanity.
Modern-day acceptance of science, even among progressive thinkers, faces challenges presenting two key developments:
1. Transition of science into a business-oriented enterprise, abandoning philosophical inquiry.
2. Recognition that scientific theories often lack solidity and can be entirely false, suggesting science is merely a collection of competing hypotheses.

Definition: Epistemological anarchism is characterized by the rejection of dogmatic elements found in previous anarchistic thought.
It differs from skepticism in that it does not equate all viewpoints or refrain from making judgments.
Unlike political anarchists, epistemological anarchists might defend certain life forms, remaining flexible in ideology and approach.

They operate without loyalty or aversion to any institutions or ideologies.
Their methodologies can encompass a range of actions, including organized group endeavors or solitary efforts.
They oppose universal standards and ideas but may act as if these truths exist, showcasing the complexity of their stance.

The belief is that human dignity is achieved through the ability to transcend basic convictions, essential elements of humanity.
The message aligns with Dadaist principles, acknowledging interrelatedness between reason and anti-reason, sense and nonsense.

Epistemological anarchists may promote their ideas depending on the audience, particularly appealing to scientists by connecting anarchist ideas to historical scientific advancements.
They leverage statements from respected scientists (e.g., insights from Einstein about the liberties required in constructing scientific theories) to support their argument.

Imre Lakatos concedes that existing methodologies conflict with scientific practices but advocates for standards that facilitate scientific progress while preserving rationality.
Research Programmes:
- Defined as evolving frameworks judged over time against rivals, rather than singularly at one moment.
- A research programme is deemed progressive if it makes predictions that are confirmed leading to discovery.
- Conversely, it is degenerating if it fails to innovate and merely absorbs rival discoveries.

While both methodologies imply there might be no absolute rational choice in science, their rhetorical approaches diverge greatly.
Lakatos criticizes degenerating programmes and aspires to rationally withdraw support.
He embraces a