Feyerabend, Feminism, and PhilosophyAuthor(s): Noretta KoertgeSource: HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy ofScience, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Spring 2013), pp. 139-141Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of the International Society for theHistory of Philosophy of ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/669955 .Accessed: 10/04/2014 01:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

The University of Chicago Press and International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science arecollaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to HOPOS: The Journal of the InternationalSociety for the History of Philosophy of Science.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:57:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Wenners, Christine, and Agnes Wold. 1997. Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review.Nature 387:34143.

West, Jevin D., Jennifer Jacquet, Molly M. King, Shelley J. Correll, and Carl T. Bergstrom.2012. The Role of Gender in Scholarly Authorship. Manuscript, Arxiv.org. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.1759.pdf.

West, Martha S., and John W. Curtis. 2006. AAUP Faculty Gender Equity Indicators,2006. Technical report, American Association of University Professors, Washington,DC.

FEYERABEND, FEMINISM,AND PHILOSOPHY

Noretta KoertgeIndiana University

One practical lesson from feminist studies is the importance of role models andmentors. When I think about influences on my intellectual life, it is womenwho first come to mind: my mother, a born teacher whose career was detouredfor many years by her four children; the formidable Miss Dean, who was theonly real science instructor in our small rural high school (the coach who triedto teach biology paled in comparison); and then much later in graduate schoolthere was Professor Mary Hesse, who came down from Cambridge to give lec-tures to supplement the brand new program in philosophy of science at ChelseaCollege (London).

Because of women such as these, I simply took it for granted that womencould be strong, smart, and respected by their peers. It was only later that re-search in Womens Studies revealed to me that not every female was as fortu-nate as I had been. Even today, we must make conscious efforts to ensure thatsuccessful women and other underrepresented groups are visible to young peo-ple. In this essay, I want to analyze the lessons learned from an unlikely rolemodel, Paul Feyerabend. Although this is written as a personal memoir, mygoal is to highlight Feyerabends intellectual contributions to philosophy of sci-ence as well as to remind us of the intricate interactions between biography andphilosophical stances.

Karl Poppers approach structured all philosophical discussions in Londonduring the 1960s. During a famous meeting at Bedford College in 1965,

Forum: Pluralism? l S P R I NG 2013

139

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:57:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Popperians confronted both Carnap and Kuhn in person and, according to localsentiment, definitively vanquished both inductivism and psychologism. AtChelsea College, we tried to take on the role of His Majestys loyal opposi-tion, but we also attended the weekly Popper Seminar at the London Schoolof Economics (LSE), where Popper through a skillful combination of inter-ruptions and arguments always seemed to carry the day. He would sit by thespeaker at the head of a large conference table so he could hear, but hewould thengradually move the speaker away from center stage. Once he even took the chalkaway from the visitor while he was trying to write on the blackboard. Asstudents, we sometimes privately mocked his seemingly polite rudeness: Ifear you have not properly understoodmy 1934 Logik der Forschung. But noneof us seriously challenged Poppers positions in publicat least not at theLSE.

And then one May the word went around: Feyerabend is coming to Lon-don. Although Against Methodwould only appear a decade later, he had alreadyroiled the Popperian waters with his essays on incommensurability, theoreticalpluralism, and a contextual theory of meaning. So it was not surprising that theroom fell completely silent one afternoon when Feyerabend came lurching injust as the seminar was about to begin. Paul! called out Popper. Come sit herebesideme! Feyerabendwaved his crutch in greetingor perhaps defianceandreplied, No, no. Im sitting here in the back with the proletariat!

We had heard about his wartime injury, but I had no idea of its ongoingeffects. Some college buildings had elevators, but there was no way to circum-vent the decorative staircases leading into them, and so just showing up musthave been exhausting. Feyerabend did not speak out much at the LSE, buthis mere presence there was a reminder to us students that there were philoso-phers who had read Popper carefully (and even translated him) but neverthe-less disagreed. We did get to see Feyerabend in action when he attended thepublic lectures at Chelsea where he participated in discussions, especially whenHeinz Post drew him out with questions about quantum mechanics. His re-marks were both ironic and incisivehe was clearly a formidable philosophicalforce.

I left London in 1968 and went off to teach in Toronto and finish mydissertation, which was on the General Correspondence Principle, an attemptto characterize the conservative as well as the radical aspects of scientificrevolutions. My principal targets were Kuhn and Feyerabend. By the nextspring, I was ready to defend. Like all PhD students, probably, I was apprehen-sive. On an earlier draft, a historian of chemistry had called me out for citingonly the first page for a quote that ran onto the next page. My Doktorvaterseditorial advice was usually welcome, but I almost ended up in tears after

HO PO S l The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science

140

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:57:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

we had a long argument over whether I should say concept C was foreign toa certain approach instead of alien, as I had originally written. But I revisedaccordingly and arrived in London in May, 1969, with 397 professionally typedpages.

It was then that I learned that not only was Feyerabend in town, but he wasgoing to be the external examiner for my dissertation defense. A thousand lineswhere I had criticized Feyerabend flashed through my mind. Even worse, I re-membered places where I had perhaps unfairly conjoined his views with thoseof Kuhn. (To this day, we often refer to Kuhn-and-Feyerabend as if they wereSiamese twins.) I voiced my fears to Professor Post, but he simply replied thathe did not want me to be bored during the defenseand besides, who better tochallenge my research than Paul Feyerabend?

I do not remember many details about the actual discussions during the de-fense. None of Feyerabends comments were threatening, as I recall, and heactually made some suggestions as to how I might strengthen my critique ofhis own position. Professor Post carefully jotted these down and then addedthings he wanted changed.My chapter 6 needed to be reformattedin its pres-ent form it read like a legal brief. So when these revisions are made, he startedto conclude, but Feyerabend interrupted, No Heinz, its fine as it is, andFeyerabend reached over and signed the acceptance form.

As you can see, I have a compelling personal reason to view Feyerabendscontributions to philosophy in a favorable light, but sometimes individual ex-periences can also point the way to insights of greater generality. I will commentbriefly on two. First, historians need to look in more detail at both the socialnetworks and personalities involved in philosophical and scientific movements.We all recognize how important it is to understand interactions within theVienna Circle or the ambitions of J. D. Watson. I think that those who visitedthe Popper Seminar in its heyday can contribute to a better understanding ofthe intensely polarized reception of his philosophy, a context that I hope will bereflected in future HOPOS research.

Second, we need to paymore attention to the role of teachers andmentors inthe development of philosophy. Paul Feyerabend may well have been tone deafin his dealings with some females. But yet in many ways he was a positive in-fluence: the courage he exhibited in traveling despite his disability, the way hecombined scathing criticisms in print with genial social interactions, and hisforthrightness in repudiating positions he had earlier defended in the light ofnew arguments. People who knew him could sense that Feyerabends call fortheoretical pluralism was rooted deeply in the ever-changing circumstances ofhis life. He had to be flexible as well as resilientphysically, psychologically,and philosophically. A survival lesson for us all.

Forum: Pluralism? l S P R I NG 2013

141

This content downloaded from 132.248.9.8 on Thu, 10 Apr 2014 01:57:51 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions