This article focuses on Paul Feuerbach’s philosophy of science to discuss whether the elimination of methodological coercion in science can increase individual freedom. From an anarchist perspective, it explains how the lack of rules can lead to stagnation of science and violations of individual freedom, and emphasizes the need for a scientific methodology.
There was a time when the term “philosophy of science” referred to the methods of science, such as induction and deduction, or the scientific methodology, which attempts to logically analyze hypotheses, theories, laws, and verification. To maintain the academic nature of science, it focused on describing experience through experiments, observations, and statistical surveys, along with logical and mathematical methods. This is because the philosophy of science in the first half of the 20th century was centered around the ideas of “logical positivism” or “logical empiricism,” which were strongly influenced by British empiricism. However, in the second half of the 20th century, scientists began to emerge with more fundamental arguments, one of which was Paul Firenze. Like anarchism, which denies all institutionalized political, power, and social authority, Firenze’s position argues for the abolition of all methodological impositions within science. More specifically, just as our ancestors freed us from the bondage of religion, which they thought was the only true religion, we should free society from the bondage of science, which is ideologically rigidized by methodological compulsion. It is supported because it is argued that this will increase individual freedom and, in a broader context, promote the personal freedom of individuals to choose science or other forms of knowledge.
However, it is worth discussing whether simply removing all methodological coercion within science would increase individual freedom in science. This is because the freedom that FireAvent argues is gained by removing scientific methodology is merely “freedom in the absence of coercion”. We need to discuss whether this would promote the freedom of individuals to choose science or other forms of knowledge, and whether methodological coercion within science would have a positive impact on individual freedom. We also need to discuss what authority science can have over other forms of knowledge, as FireAvent denies.
Before we get into the discussion, let’s take a closer look at anarchism and the anarchistic aspects of FireAvent’s argument. Anarchism is the idea that governments do not exist and that any form of political authority is unwanted and unnecessary. The most important social psychological foundation of anarchism is the gender-based belief that humans are inherently social and cooperative rather than selfish and competitive. Anarchists are distinguished by their desire for unrestricted freedom and their opposition to any form of political or religious authority, envisioning a free and cooperative society, while Marxism envisioned a classless, unorganized communist society after the so-called revolution. Just as in Anarchism, the government uses its political authority to suppress individual freedom, so in FireAbend’s theory, the methodological compulsions of science violate individual scientific freedom. Therefore, FireAbend does not recognize the methodology of science as a set of rules that dictate the activities of scientists. Instead, it aims for a scientific society based on unrestricted individual freedom.
FireAbend argues that individual freedom is guaranteed in the absence of constraint, or science as a set of rules. However, this defines freedom as the “absence of restraint” and overlooks the positive aspects of restraint. What FireAvent is trying to convey is that everyone should be able to follow their own tastes and do their own thing (FireAvent calls it “do whatever you want”) without being constrained by any rules, such as methodology, and on a simple understanding, this seems to increase individual freedom. But in practice, it means that science stagnates. In his book What is Science, American theoretical physicist Richard Feynman wrote that scientific meetings and debate are the best way to explore the world, and that humanity’s responsibility is to use them to advance the answers to problems and pass them on to future generations. If all scientists acted according to their own preferences, they would not be able to fulfill their responsibility to advance the answers to problems through meetings and discussions, as he wrote. Such a situation would lead to stagnation in science, and could easily lead to a situation where those already in power would remain in power. This means that scientific progress that overturns the dominant scientific view, such as logical positivism or disprovism, is unlikely to occur. Scientific stagnation due to a lack of rules therefore infringes on the freedom of individuals to hold non-dominant scientific views. Just as anarchists oppose any form of authority and envision a free and cooperative society with unrestricted freedom, it is contradictory for FireAvent to claim that the absence of scientific rules, such as methodology, can lead to cooperation among scientists. Scientists need some sort of rules to empower dominant and non-dominant claims, and through that, consultation and debate among scientists (and thus scientific progress) can be achieved.
So let’s consider whether scientific methodology can have the status of such a rule. FireAvent says that the methodology of a research program provides standards that can help scientists evaluate the historical context in which they make decisions, but it does not contain rules that tell scientists what to do. By saying that they are standards and not rules, FireAvent means that they are “any way you want to do it,” which, as discussed above, leads to stagnation in science, which is a violation of individual liberty. Therefore, for the sake of individual liberty, methodologies should be both standards and rules.
In addition to methodological coercion, FireAvent was also unwilling to recognize the superiority of science over other forms of knowledge. It argues that it is not right to exclude magic or astrology by appealing to universal standards of scientificity or rationality, such as the claim that scientists can “do whatever they want” without methodological compulsion. If we want to know the purposes and methods of a form of knowledge, and the extent to which it fulfills those purposes, then we should study that form of knowledge. But we cannot be sure that magic or astrology have a well-defined purpose and a method of fulfilling that purpose. On the other hand, as I have argued in the previous two points, science can be evaluated through a set of rules called methodology. Even if methodology is not recognized as a rule, it can still be recognized as a standard that can be evaluated historically, as FireAvent argues, so that the achievements of science can be evaluated. In this respect, science can be evaluated as superior to other non-evaluable forms of knowledge. An unevaluable object cannot be recognized simply because it cannot be evaluated, that is, because there is no basis for its exclusion.
We have examined FireAvent’s theory of anarchism and the arguments made in defense of the scientific method. Since freedom has the property of being “unconstrained,” we can speak in terms of guaranteeing individual freedom in the absence of any rules, but the presence of rules does not suppress individual freedom. Rules can prevent scientific stagnation, which leads to scientific collaboration, while at the same time ensuring individual freedom. Therefore, it cannot be said that removing rules would increase individual freedom. Science has rules, called methodologies, that prevent stagnation in science and thus ensure individual scientific freedom. It is also evaluated on the basis of these rules and is superior to other forms of knowledge that cannot be evaluated. Considering “science as a guarantee of individual freedom” is important in that it considers the realization of “freedom,” an important concept in modern times. This debate about scientific progress and individual freedom will be an ongoing one.
