SO PAUL FEYERABEND AND THOMAS
KUHN WE'RE BOTH AT BERKELEY,
CALIFORNIA IN 1959.
AND THEY DID TALK A LOT THEN.
FEYERABEND HAS SAID THAT HE DID
INDEED DISCUSS THIS VERY
IDEA OF INCOMMENSURABILITY
WITH KUHN AT THAT TIME.
AND HE AND KUHN, IN PARALLEL,
AND UNDOUBTEDLY IN A KIND OF
CONCERT, BECAME VERY CRITICAL
OF THE IDEA OF THERE BEING
SOME FIXED RATIONAL
LOGIC OF SCIENCE.
BUT I THINK IN PARALLEL.
NOT THAT FEYERABEND
WENT WITH KUHN.
FEYERABEND HAD BEEN VERY, HAD
BECOME VERY DISILLUSIONED WITH
THE STATE OF QUANTUM PHYSICS
AT THAT TIME.
IT WAS A TIME JUST BEFORE THERE
WAS A NEW SYNTHESIS.
PEOPLE WERE PRODUCING NEW
PARTICLES ALL THE TIME.
SEEMED TO HIM THAT PHYSICS WAS
TOO DETERMINED TO TAKE ON A
WAY OF, SORT, OF RESEMBLING
THE OLD MECHANICS.
AND NOT BEING DARING
ENOUGH TO JUMP OFF.
NOW, I THINK FEYERABEND
WAS IN A SENSE RIGHT.
BUT DIDN'T REALIZE THAT A WHOLE
NEW WAY OF SYNTHESIZING
MICROPHYSICS WAS JUST
ABOUT TO OCCUR.
WAS EVEN OCCURRING, ALMOST
AROUND HIM IN CALIFORNIA AND
SOME OTHER PLACES
AT THAT TIME.
FEYERABEND, VERY CRITICAL IN
DETAIL OF EMPIRICIST ATTITUDES
TO, EMPIRICIST INDUCTIVE
ATTITUDES TO THE SCIENCES.
AT THE BEGINNING VERY IMPRESSED
WITH POPPER.
BUT BECOMING CONVINCED THAT
THERE WASN'T ANY BASIC
RATIONALE FOR SCIENTIFIC WORK.
THERE WAS NO SOUND
METHODOLOGY.
IN HIS MOST FAMOUS BOOK, CALLED
AGAINST METHOD, IS,
ONCE AGAIN VERY GOOD TITLE.
IT LITERALLY WAS AGAINST THE
POSSIBILITY OF THERE BEING ANY
BEST METHOD IN THE SCIENCES.
AND, ONCE AGAIN, LIKE SO MANY
OF THE OTHER PHILOSOPHERS OF
SCIENCE, BUILDS SOME OF
HIS MOST POWERFUL
CHAPTERS AROUND GALILEO.
WHO, HE SAYS, IS NEITHER AN
INDUCTIVIST NOR DEDUCTIVIST,
WHO PRODUCED IDEAS OUT OF THE
BLUE, AND USED THEM TO CHANGE
A WHOLE WORLDVIEW.
HIS PICTURE OF
INCOMMENSURABILITY WAS REALLY
MUCH MORE GENERAL THEN KUHN'S.
AND HE'S ALSO OFTEN, I THINK,
BEEN PRESENTED AS A MERE, A
MERE ALMOST NIHILIST.
I MEAN, HE DID HAVE THIS
PHASE, ANYTHING GOES.
WHICH HE REALLY MEANT.
HE WAS REALLY OPPOSED TO ANY
KIND OF AUTHORITARIANISM.
YOU'VE MENTIONED MILL, HIS
STRONG ALLEGIANCE TO MILL, BUT
NOT TO JOHN STEWART MILL'S
SYSTEM OF LOGIC, BUT TO JOHN
STUART MILL ON LIBERTY.
FIRM, REALLY FIRM, CONVICTION
ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF
ALLOWING MANY DIFFERENT
IDEAS TO COMPETE.
HE TAUGHT AT BERKELEY AT A TIME
OF REALLY RADICAL CHANGE.
WE'VE NOW, SORT OF, FORGOTTEN
THOSE TRULY EXCITING BUT ALSO
VIOLENT DAYS IN THE
LATE 1960S.
TIME OF THE VIETNAM WAR, BUT
ALSO TIME OF TREMENDOUS
EXCITEMENT.
DISTURBANCE.
TENTATIVE REVOLUTION IN THE
UNIVERSITIES AND NOWHERE MORE
SO THAN AT BERKELEY ITSELF.
WHICH, IN DOWNTOWN BERKELEY
THERE'S STILL HO CHI
MINH PARK OUT THERE.
WHICH WAS NAMED AT THE TIME
BY THE STUDENT RADICALS.
AND THAT WAS A PRETTY DRAMATIC
THING TO DO AT THAT TIME.
AND HE WAS CONVINCED THAT THE
BAD THINGS WHICH WERE
HAPPENING IN THE POLITICAL
STRUCTURE OF THE POWER WORLD,
OF THE NATIONS, WAS IN PART A
KIND OF COMMITMENT TO CERTAIN
KINDS OF FIXED IDEAS AND THAT
THE SCIENCES HAD BECOME TOO
MUCH THE SERVANTS OF POWER.
AND WERE TOO LITTLE INTERESTED
IN OPENING UP NEW CHAINS OF
POSSIBILITY.
AND WHEN FEYERABEND SAID
ANYTHING GOES, HE DIDN'T MEAN
THAT, FOR INSTANCE, TRADITIONAL
SCIENTIFIC
METHODOLOGY WAS FINISHED BECAUSE
ANYTHING, AMONG ONE OF
THOSE THINGS THAT IS ANYTHING,
IT'S TRADITIONAL SCIENTIFIC
METHODOLOGY.
HE SAID, THAT SHOULD
HAVE ITS PLACE.
BUT WE SHOULD JUST HAVE THIS
KIND OF OPENNESS TO ALL KINDS
OF POSSIBILITIES AND WAYS
OF DOING THINGS.
AND WHEN HE PUBLISHED IN THIS
WAY, IT ATTRACTED AN ENORMOUS
AMOUNT OF ATTENTION.
MANY PEOPLE FELT THREATENED
BY IT.
OTHER PEOPLE, MOSTLY YOUNG
PEOPLE, FELT MOSTLY CHALLENGED
AND THRILLED AT THIS KIND OF
OPENNESS WHICH HE SPOKE.
AND SO HE AGAIN BECAME A
SPOKESPERSON FOR A WHOLE
GENERATION.
LESS SO NOW.
I MEAN, EVEN IN THE PAST FIVE
OR SIX YEARS I'VE NOTICED
UNDERGRADUATES, YOU KNOW,
FEYERABEND IS SORT OF
SOMEWHERE IN THE PAST NOW.
