Against Method

What Hacker News says

1. tech_kenNov 2025
   > With the emergence of AI in science, we are witnessing the prelude to a curious inversion – our human ability to instrumentally control nature is beginning to outpace human understanding of nature, and in some instances, appears possible without understanding at all.

   A while ago I read "Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend and there's a section that really stuck with me, where he talks about the "myth" of Galileo. His point is that Galileo serves as sort of the mythological prototype of a scientist, and that by picking at the loose ends of the myth one can identify some contradictory elements of the popular conception of "scientific method". One of his main points of contention is Galileo's faith in the telescope, his novel implementation of bleeding edge optics technology. Feyerebend argues that Galileo invented the telescope as primarily a military invention, it revolutionized the capabilities of artillery guns (and specifically naval artillary). Having secured his finances with some wealthy patrons, he then began to hunt for nobler uses of his new tool, and landed on astronomy.

   Feyerabend's point (and what I'm slowly working up to) is that applying this new (and untested) military tool to what was a very ancient and venerable domain of inquiry was actually kind of scandalous. Up until that point all human knowledge of astronomy had been generated by direct observation of the phenomenon; by introducing this new tool between the human and the stars Galileo was creating a layer of separation which had never been there before, and this was the source of much of the contemporary controversy that led to his original censure. It was one thing to base your cosmology on what could be detected by the human eye, but it seemed very "wrong" (especially to the church) to insert an unfeeling lump of metal and glass into what had before been a very "pure" interaction, which was totally comprehensible to the typical educated human.

   I feel like this article is expressing a very similar fear, and I furthermore think that it's kind of "missing the point" in the same way. Human comprehension is frequently augmented by technologly; no human can truly "understand" a gravitational wave experientially. At best we understand the n-th order 'signs' that the phenomenon imprints on the tools we construct. I'd argue that LLMs play a similar role in their application in math, for example. It's about widening our sensor array, more than it is delegating the knowledge work to a robot apprentice.

   Show morethread
2. richardatlargeNov 2025
   Yes, but let's not forget that even in science we are often blind to the truth already in front of us.

   The papers I'm most amazed by are known but unappreciated

   Against Method" by Paul Feyerabend, Thomas Kuhn, TSSR

   thread
3. PaulDavisThe1stMay 2025
   It reminds me much more of Paul Feyerabend's even better book "Against Method" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method
   thread
4. richardatlargeMay 2025
   Don’t forget P Feyerabend, Against Method

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Against_Method

   thread
5. robwwilliamsMar 2025
   Read Feyerabend’s Against Method Thom. You have rephrased (very well) the necessity of counter-inductive thinking.
   thread
6. tech_kenJun 2024
   Feyerabend has an interesting account of this in “Against Method”. One thing I also found very interesting in his telling is the role of the telescope in revolutionizing naval warfare. Galileo in part was motivated, and supported by, a sort of proto-military-industrial complex.
   thread