The Archive de Philosophie once wrote about Paul Feyerabend's groundbreaking book: &ldquo\;Against Method is more than a book: it is an event.&rdquo\; The New Scientist called it: &ldquo\;A brilliant polemic.&rdquo\; However you want to describe the book\, it should ultimately be indisputable that \;Against Method is undoubtedly a classic of modern philosophy of science.
\nSuch a book\, which was seen as an event in its time and provoked reactions far beyond the scientific community\, is more than that: It is a watershed in modern philosophy that still leads to fierce debates about the nature of knowledge\, the practice of the scientific community and the theory of knowledge. Since Against Method\, Feyerabend has devoted much of his career to arguing that science as practiced cannot be described\, let alone regulated\, by any coherent methodology\, whether understood historically\, as in Thomas Kuhn's use of paradigms\, or epistemologically\, as in classical positivism and its offspring.
\n
50 years after the publication of Against Method\, the conference aims to capture the current significance of this book in modern science. To what extent did it have an impact on debates on science? What influence did it have on the field of modern philosophy of science? To what extent does the historical perception at the time of publication coincide with our current perception? Are there Feyerabendians in philosophy of science today and if so\, would Feyerabend have wanted this? Are Feyerabend's conclusions regarding scientific claims and understandings still pungent and timely as ever?