Modern medicine, science and education - Paul Feyerabend

I have to interrupt my discussion of depression and antidepressants to say a few words about an amazing book (now out of print, like so many worthwhile books) that just arrived from the US - Paul Feyerabend's irreverant Science in a free society, published in 1978 and last reprinted in 1987 (London: Verso,1987). My first contact with Feyerabend's playfully irreverant (but scholarly in the best academic tradition) approach to science was in 1976, when I was a tutor and postgraduate student in the School of Behavioural Sciences at Macquarie University. His then recently (1975) published Against method was the first required reading in a Sociology seminar I attended. It was this seminar which first introduced me to the important field of "the sociology of knowledge" [A better translation of the original German "Wissenssoziologie" would be "the sociology of consciousness" or, even "the sociology of science", depending on context; "sociology of belief" would also be a possible translation. See Karl Mannheim, Ideology and utopia: An introduction to the sociology of knowledge (1929, 1931, 1936) London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1960 and 1968]. The basic idea expressed within the field of the sociology of knowledge is one that derives from Marx and Engels, an idea they put forward as early as 1845 in The German ideology, viz that what we think, believe and claim to know (including scientific theories, law, morality and religion, as well as our "common sense", or everyday beliefs) depend, not on rational argument or neutral, value free scientific evidence, but on the economic structure of the society in which we live and the propaganda of those with the power to define reality for citizens.

While it is impossible to do justice to the basic thesis of Against method in a few words, I would summarise it with Feyerabend's own formulation of the only principle that does not inhibit progress in science, viz., "anything goes" (Against method: Outline of an anarchistic theory of knowledge. London: NLB, 1975, Page 23). According to Feyerabend, an examination of the history of science as actually practised by the best practitioners (as opposed to the the mystifications called "philosophy of science" and "methodology") reveals that the best scientists follow such a principle unconsciously anyway! They also lie, cheat and deceive the scientific community regularly - including the very best of them, such as Galileo. In Science in a free society, published a mere three years later, Feyerabend continued the attack on modern science (including modern medicine), as well as modern education and the unreasonable power held by these institutions in the modern world. He was also replying to his many critics. Contrary to what many of these critics ascribed to him, Feyerabend was not anti-science. He was only against scientific arrogance and dogmatism, which he compared to the excesses of religion as an institution during the Middle Ages (and even during the 19th century). The power of priests, he said, had been replaced by the power of scientists. The medical profession came in for particular scorn - again, not because he did not think doctors had anything valuable to contribute, but because of their unreasonable attitude to alternatives, such as acupuncture and, more generally, eastern and "tribal" medicine. In a free society, all approaches would have equal power to put their case to the public, including equal access to the media. This is neither the time nor the place to examine this wonderful book. But anyone who wishes to understand what today passes for science and especially modern medicine (including the "new psychiatry") or, rather, the myriad ways in which these institutions limit our freedom - in particular our freedom of thought - will benefit by reading it. Becoming (and then remaining) conscious requires discipline. Personal growth in the form of healing (in particular, the healing of old wounds) is one prerequisite. Leaving social arrangements (families, relationships, places of employment) that are disempowering is another. Learning about how the institutions of our society (the mass media, modern medicine, government agencies, the pharmaceutical industry, corporations involved in the manufacture of military equipment and the powerful institutions of science) function in the real world is another prerequisite. As I pointed out in the discussion of depression - and as Feyerabend argues far more eloquently - there are alternatives to the (scientific/medical) model presented on TV, in our newspapers and so-called "educational" establishments. Not that the model presented by biological psychiatrists is scientific, in any but the most trivial sense.

Further reading:

John Preston et al (eds) (2000) The worst enemy of science? Essays in memory of Paul Feyerabend. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000;

Paul Feyerabend (1987) Farewell to reason. London: Verso, 1987 (reprinted 2002);

Posthumously published autobiography (completed about two months before his death; he died on 11 February 1994), Killing time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1995;

Also posthumously published: Conquest of abundance: A tale of abstraction versus the richness of being. Edited by Bert Terpstra. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1999; Paperback edition, 2001.