Against Method Feyerabend

 From wikipedia:

Against Method is a 1975 book about the philosophy of science by Paul Feyerabend. It argues that science is an anarchic, not a monic, enterprise.^[1] In the context of this work, the term anarchy refers to epistemological anarchy.

"
Epistemological anarchism is an epistemological theory advanced by Austrian philosopher of science Paul Feyerabend which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge. It holds that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious, and detrimental to science itself.^[1]
The use of the term anarchism in the name reflected the methodological pluralism prescription of the theory; as the purported scientific method does not have a monopoly on truth or useful results. Feyerabend once famously said that because there is no fixed scientific method, it is best to have an "anything goes" attitude toward methodologies.^[1] Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology, and, despite its successes, science had started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology. He felt the exclusive dominance of science as a means of directing society was authoritarian and ungrounded.^[1] Promulgation of the theory earned Feyerabend the title of “the worst enemy of science” from his detractors.


Feyerabend divides his argument into an abstract critique followed by a number of historical case studies.^[2]
The abstract critique is a reductio ad absurdum of methodological monism (the belief that a single methodology can produce scientific progress).^[3] Feyerabend goes on to identify four features of methodological monism: the principle of falsification,^[4] a demand for increased empirical content,^[5] the forbidding of ad hoc hypotheses^[6] and the consistency condition.^[7] He then demonstrates that these features imply that science could not progress, hence an absurdity for proponents of the scientific method.
The historical case studies also act as a reductio.^[8] Feyerabend takes the premise that Galileo's advancing of a heliocentric cosmology was an example of scientific progress. He then demonstrates that Galileo did not adhere to the conditions of methodological monism. Feyerabend also argues that, if Galileo had adhered to the conditions of methodological monism, then he could not have advanced a heliocentric cosmology. This implies that scientific progress would have been impaired by methodological monism. Again, an absurdity for proponents of the scientific method.^[9]
Feyerabend summarises his reductios with the phrase "anything goes". This is his sarcastic imitation of "the terrified reaction of a rationalist who takes a closer look at history".

Text:
viii
science and other cultures can "stand on two feet"