Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T18:51:21.887Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rhetoric and Scientific Rationality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Maurice A. Finocchiaro
Maurice A. Finocchiaro*
Affiliation:
University of NevadaLas Vegas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The problem of scientific rationality and Feyerabend's views on the subject need no special introduction in this context. What does need emphasis is the desirability of resisting the widespread tendency either to dismiss him as a Dadaist or to take his rhetoric seriously and despair about the rationality of science. Both tendencies betray a failure to appreciate his peculiar contributions, which are a (relatively) novel theory of rationality, and a (relatively) novel problem. The theory is that scientific rationality is essentially rhetorical, in the sense that scientific method ultimately reduces to a matter of techniques of persuasion (as distinct from, say, a matter of “method”); and the problem, which remains even for those who may reject the theory, is that of the role of rhetoric in science.

Since Feyerabend's latest book is full of the rhetoric of irrationalism, it is best to begin by purifying the air surrounding such rhetoric.

Type
Part VI. Aspects of Rationality
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1978 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1978 , 1978 , pp. 235 - 246
Copyright
Copyright © 1978 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

The author gratefully acknowledges the support received from the National Science Foundation on Grant No. SOC76-10220 and from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas for a sabbatical leave in 1976-77.

References

Feyerabend, Paul K. Against Method. Atlantic Highlands, N. J.: Humanities Press, Inc., 1975.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, Maurice A. “Essay-review of Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 3 (1972-73): 357–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finocchiaro, Maurice A. “Galileo as a Logician.” Physics 16(1974): 129–148.Google Scholar
Finocchiaro, Maurice A. History of Science as Explanation. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Funkenstein, Amos. “The Dialectical Preparation for Scientific Revolutions.” In The Copernican Achievement. (UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies Contributions, Volume VII.) Edited by Westman, Robert S.. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Pages 165–203.Google Scholar
Galilei, Galileo. Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems. Translated by Drake, S.. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1953, 1962 and 1967.Google Scholar
Gellner, Ernest. “Beyond Truth and Falsehood.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26(1975): 331–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar