The Tyranny of Science [Paperback]

At last an antidote to the stupidity of scientism and its invidious variations. Yes, I do understand why science has tried to create its own cathedrals to secular reason, I entirely dislike the religious fundamentalisms but their manner of engagement falsifies science. And, to be honest, Dawkins is so philosophically naive it gets boring listening to him + his detractors.

Feyerabend, for those who don't know him wrote the marvelous Against Method which provoked an enormous debate with his close friend, Imre Lakatos over the concept of scientific methodology (see For and Against Method: Including Lakatos's Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence.

THis might sound like dry stuff but believe me it isn't. What defines science as opposed to, say, pure dogma? What defines scientific rationality? Or, broadly speaking, what defines reason? These are critical questions at the heart of making science the marvel it is. Forget the technology, it is this philosophical heart to the question of what defines the essence of science that needs a wider audience.

But, be wary. Feyerabend isn't out to get your agreement - let him provoke your thought.

Considering that this book is just 134 pages long, it is a difficult read. It has been put together from a series of lectures given, I presume, to philosophy students. This means that the specialist language effect comes in to play. You know what I mean by that, if one gets a group of football fans together, they invariably start to spout the advantages of the 4-4-2 system over the 4-5-1, and whether wing-backs are preferable to purely defensive full-backs. So, in this book, the rank amateur needs to accept that some arguments are going to sail right over his/her head (or, at least they did mine).

Despite the above slight gripe, this is a fascinating read, which will certainly bear a repeat wrestle, at a later date. To continue to nit-pick, the title is slightly misleading; when I first opened the package containing this book, I felt that I must have made an error in ordering same. I was concerned that this would be a fully blown hatchet job on science. It isn't. Feyerabend takes on science and religion at the very point upon which their most strident exponents agree: namely their certitude. He argues against the theory of an empirical answer to every question.

Sadly, Feyerabend died in 1994: I would love to read his views upon the work currently being done by many famous theoretical scientists whereby they expect soon to announce a unifying theory of everything. I suspect that he would see similarities to the more strident exponents of various religious faiths, who are convinced that anyone who believes anything one iota different to themselves, is worthless and due to burn in Hell for all eternity.

Feyerabend argues for diversity of ideas. This flies so far in the face of what we are taught, that one's first reaction is to oppose (again, this might just be me) but, the more that one considers the concept, the more sense that it makes. In the field of agriculture we are busy trying to ensure diversity of strains so that, were we to be faced with a situation whereby a particular type of grain, for example, were to be attacked by a predator and become incapable of providing wheat for our bread, a different type which has been rejected, possibly because of a lesser efficiency, but with a defence to the attacker, could be used.

In general science, we are so busy reaching out for the ultimate answer (phrase borrowed from HH2G), that we steamroller anyone whose thoughts are at odds with the current direction. We have, therefore arrived at a situation whereby, as I understand it, we have two theories - one based upon gravity, which explains things within the 'Big World'. It works and can be used to calculate an accurate prediction of how future events will occur ( for example, when the next solar eclipse is due) - and Quantum Physics, which, works at the sub-atomic level, with a similar degree of accuracy. The only problem being, that the proof of 'Big Physics' means that Quantum Physics cannot work, and vice versa. To achieve some form of solution one, perhaps both sides of this debate need to step back but admitting that one is in error isn't easy.

We need a world in which divergent thoughts are, not just permitted, but actively encouraged and Feyerabend does an excellent job in reminding us of this. Through diversity comes the alternative which may be right - if not for everybody, then at leas for some.

From being a mathematics/theoretical physics undergrad and postgrad, I turned my face away from all that after becoming increasingly of the opinion that modern science arrogates to itself the notion of incontrovertible truth. A critique of scientific claims would be a book right up my street, but this work based upon lectures delivered by Feyerabend is a veritable damp squib.

Namedropping Parmenides, Anaximander, Anaxagoras and the like hardly adds up to a devastating blast against modern science, which is virtually ignored. Sorry to say but this is a truly unmemorable volume which made no impression upon me.