Thinking Science: From Kuhn\u27s scientific paradigm to Feyerabend\u27s epistemological anarchism

Diplomsko delo se osredotoča na epistemološko kritiko strukturnih omejitev znanosti skoncentrirano v primerjalni analizi dveh avtorjev – Tomasa Kuhna in Paula Feyerabenda. Prvo raziskovalno vprašanje se nanaša neposredno na obravnavani deli: v kakšnem odnosu je Feyerabendov epistemološki anarhizem do Kuhnove teorije znanstvenih revolucij? V ta namen v prvem delu predstavim glavne pojme teorij, ki jih v analitičnem delu nato primerjam. V diplomskem delu ugotavljam, da kljub podobnim izhodiščem kot so holistična perspektiva znanosti, poudarjanje relativnost znanstvenega izkustva, pomembnost kršenja znanstvenih pravil, inkomenzurabilnosti in kumulativne narave znanstvenega razvoja, Feyerabendov epistemološki anarhizem radikalizira Kunovo teorijo znanstvenih revolucij. Nadalje koncept inkomenzurabilnosti znanstvenih teorij diplomsko delo poveže z drugim raziskovalnim vprašanjem: kako nastopiti proti hegemoniji znanstvenega vedenja? Z odgovorom diplomsko delo prehaja na ontološko raven, ki pri kateri različne znanstvene teorije (paradigme) ustvarjajo svoje ločene svetove. S tem diplomsko delo zavrača pozitivistično misel po striktni objektivnosti dejstev in ugotavlja, da so podatki neizogibno povezani s teorijo. Ravno to diplomsko delo privede do politološke razsežnosti problematiziranja hegemonskega proizvajanja specifične forme vednosti, ki izkustvo podreja dotični teoriji, paradigmi, ideologiji. Ob določitvi problematike tako na samem koncu s pomočjo Boaventure de Sousa Santosa in Feyerabenda diplomsko delo zaključi, da za se moramo proti hegemoniji vedenja boriti z kreativnostjo in produkcijo alternativnih oblik vedenja.The thesis focuses on the epistemological critique of the structural limitations of science concentrated in the comparative analysis of two authors - Tomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. The first research question relates directly to the mentioned authors: what is the relation of Feyerabend\u27s epistemological anarchism to Kuhn\u27s theory of scientific revolutions? In regard to this question I firstly present the main concepts of theories, which I then compare in the second part (analysis). In the diploma thesis, I establish that in spite of similar starting points, such as the holistic perspective of science, emphasizing the relativity of scientific experience, the importance of violating scientific rules, incomensurabillity and the cumulative nature of scientific development, Feyerabend\u27s epistemological anarchism radicalises Kuhn\u27s theory of scientific revolutions. Furthermore the concept of incomensurability of scientific theories links the diploma thesis with the second research question: how to proceed against the hegemony of scientific knowleadge? By answering, thesis passes on to the ontological level, in which different scientific theories (paradigms) create separate worlds. With this thesis I reject the positivist thought of the strict objectivity of the facts and note that all data is inevitably related to theory. This is precisely what leads the diploma thesis to the political dimension of the problematization of the hegemonic production of a specific form of knowledge which subtends the experience to specific theory, paradigm, ideology. In determining the problem, at the very end, with the help of Boaventura de Sousa Santos and Feyerabend, the diploma paper concludes that we must oppose the hegemony of behavior with creativity and the production of alternative forms of knowleage