The relationship between science and cultural critics, but with the dangers which
the philosophy of science is likely to be arose when people fail to understand and
judged a contested one. Certainly many appreciate science. Back in the 1960s and
philosophical debates may seem oblique to early 1970s, Feyerabend urged philoso-
the uninitiated (and even then, perhaps phers of science to take seriously both the
still!), whilst recent intellectual debacles history of science and scientific practice—
have tended to portray philosophers of he was a trained physicist himself—and
science in a poor light. During the 1990s, warned his peers that mere abstract
for example, the ‘‘Science Wars’’ erupted reflection on the sciences would produce
over the question of whether scientific only idealised fantasies of science, rather
theories provided true, objective descrip- than workable models of it. Although
tions of reality, or whether they were subsequent generations of philosophers of
simply arbitrary ‘‘constructions,’’ mere science took him seriously, many at the
mythologies on a par with ancient Greek time took his claim as a personal attack—
theogony or medieval magic [1]. There is hence the ‘‘bad reputation.’’
some truth to such charges, some of it Into the 1980s, Feyerabend began to
certainly attributable to an unhealthy expand the scope of his ideas. By the
certain intoxication with trendy theories beginning of the 1980s, the philosophy of
(like ‘‘relativism’’ and ‘‘constructionism’’). science was a richer discipline, so Feyer-
Yet even if those charges are not always abend moved onto new issues. It struck
justified, and even if the majority of the him that public confidence in the sciences
philosophy of science is informed and was beginning to change into the 1980s.
responsible, it remains true that philoso- The nuclear accidents at Chernobyl and
phers of science who pitch into debates Three Mile Island, waning interest in the
space program, and ambitious new claims Feyerabend P (2011) The Tyranny of
about the sciences beyond their own
on behalf of genetics were beginning to Science. Oberheim E, editor. Cam-
professional boundaries must take extra bridge: Polity Press. 180 p. ISBN-13:
care before letting loose their ideas. affect public faith in the sciences. Feyer- 978-0745651897 (hardcover). US$54.95
With that proviso in mind, the title of abend was not opposed to such public doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001166.g001
Paul Feyerabend’s book, The Tyranny of doubts, but he did worry that the public
Science, should set off alarm bells, especially concerns, although sincere, were too often
since the cover of the book depicts blood- ill-informed. Worse still, those worries conspiracy to disempower indigenous cul-
red atomic bombs falling from above onto were often amplified by overzealous phi- tures—indeed, Feyerabend himself suc-
a desolate city. Indeed, the author himself, losophers who, to his mind, were failing in cumbed to such alluring polemics for a
who was professor of philosophy at their job of clarifying concepts, scrutinising time, which partly explains his hostile
Berkeley and Zurich until his death in arguments, and helping people to articu- reaction to them later in his career [3].
1993, has a ‘‘bad reputation’’ both within late and develop their ideas. By the late Feyerabend’s issues with public concerns
and beyond the philosophy of science. 1980s, Feyerabend began to take special about science and his worries about philos-
Feyerabend was famously dubbed ‘‘the issue with philosophers who actively en- ophers’ role in the subsequent debates laid
worst enemy of science’’ by Science, and couraged such confusions, for instance the foundations for the lectures that became
even today philosophers of science will by announcing that electrons and genes The Tyranny of Science. In fact, the original title
tend to associate his name with anti- were mere ‘‘social constructions,’’ or by of that lecture series was Conflict and Harmony,
science polemics, defences of voodoo and rebranding forms of relativism, or by im- which is a much better title because it
astrology, and more besides [2]. plicating ‘‘Western Science’’ in a powerful indicates that public engagement with
Fortunately, Feyerabend is far more
sensible than the title and cover of this Citation: Kidd IJ (2011) Rethinking Feyerabend: The ‘‘Worst Enemy of Science’’? PLoS Biol 9(10): e1001166.
doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001166
book and his bad reputation suggest.
Although he is reputed as a critic of Published October 4, 2011
science, he is not. Feyerabend is critical Copyright: ß 2011 Ian James Kidd. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
not of science itself, but of false and Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are credited.
misleading images of the sciences. The
Funding: No funding was received for this article.
‘‘tyranny’’ of the title refers not to an
encroaching and disenchanting ‘‘scientific Competing Interests: The author has declared that no competing interests exist.
worldview,’’ of the sort popular with some * E-mail: i.j.kidd@durham.ac.uk