Epistemological anarchism
Under the designation methods anarchism Paul Feyerabend in epistemology considers that there is no universal simple rules and methods that are equally valid for all fields of knowledge and can guarantee rationality. He therefore calls for a pluralistic anarchist science, in the individual fields of knowledge no general law-and -order methodology from the outside to be imposed but these should each accepted methods determine in their fields free and autonomous self to true and meaningful to achieve results.
In addition to the concept of incommensurability, Feyerabend explains his view with detailed historical case studies, specifically to Galileo Galilei. Scientific progress was only possible because scientists have repeatedly violated the respective propagated methodological rules of their time.
Fears that this anarchism could lead to chaos, he replies that the human nervous system is too well organized to make that happen. This guarantees that a single action would be achieved quickly even under certain and ambiguous situations. This anarchism it 'll certainly also the case that there could be times when the ratio a temporary benefit should be given and where it was anbracht whose rules to defend against everything else.
Criticism
What Feyerabend overlooked by David Miller, is that the goal of methods is not the justification of a choice of theories or methods. Feyerabend is therefore correct in so far as the choice of a method can not be justified, but he is wrong in assuming that all of them must therefore be equal. Because the choice of a method has objective consequences and can the problems be solved together according to their own standards, solve pure by these criteria better or worse. The method of trial and error, trying to justify anything, so works well in the choice of methods and is quite applicable to themselves. Performative contradictions do not occur because target is not self- justification, but self-criticism.
Indeed, Feyerabend, acting under Miller himself a similar position, but goes so far as to also allow methods that go against the logic and thus difficult to criticize and must be rejected if they fail. On this point, Feyerabend's anarchism methods from critical methodological pluralism of critical rationalism differs; Miller believes that Feyerabend has no real argument against the logic and freely according to his own words, a thief who steals the logic to then criticize the robbed man that he no longer owns.