Feyerabend: The case for Methodological Pluralism

I have to say that Feyerabend has a point, when it comes to saying that science has inherent biases, and
that the only way to have an epistemological viewpoint that is free from prejudice, is by having a perspective that is flexible and changeable. But, Berstein (1983) quotes Gadamer by saying there is no knowledge without prejudice, anyway...

I think that Feyerabend's Dadaistic (anything goes approach), and anarchist view of scientific method is a little extreme, especially when it comes to replacing let's say astronomy (a hard science, backed by empirical experience) with astrology (a more touchy feely, yet rational paradigm). The article I was reading, proposed a kind of openness to accepting new ideas, that science should take advantage of other theories and paradigms; such as medicine accepting the help of herbalists and other alternative medicine.

Feyerabend just has far too liberal an interpretation of truth, that he accepts just about any idea (Magic and mysticism). Scientific method may be inconclusive, but it has given us various understandings that are open to verification and falsifiability, but even more importantly they can be practically applied, with reasonable success. Shouldn't we be looking for all those successful applications of theories, and reject those ideas that don't help better our understanding of society. We don't have to hold onto one paradigm, at the expense of beneficial aspects of another (Tibbetts, 1977)
I think that Feyerabend has made it possible to have a more critical view of the nature of scientific method, and probably enabled us to be more open to all potential sources of information...so that we can have a better quality of life, Holistically...
Steven Mondy

Tibbetts, P. (1977) Feyerabend's Against Method: The case for Methodological Pluralism, Sage publications, retrieved Nov, 27, 2007 at http://pos.sagepub.com