Paul Feyerabend's Weak Argument on Science's Harm to Society

Paper 2
Student's Name
Institution
Course
Professor's Name
Date
Prompt 1
Philosophy is crucial in shaping society's behavior. People use philosophical interpretation to understand meanings of phrases, phenomena, and rules that may be hard to interpret. The scientific revolution introduced scientific processes of countering religious beliefs and other ideologies shaping society's morals. However, several philosophers were not satisfied by how science dominated society, defining almost every aspect of life. Paul Feyerabend is one of the philosophers who argued against scientific methodologies. Feyerabend argues that science is an ideology and can be read like fairy tales with interesting things which can be lies. The ideas in science can be good but may harm society if followed strictly. Feyerabend thinks that modern science does not contribute to the liberation of humans and that science inhibits freedom of thought and does not lead humans to question inherited beliefs (Feyerabend, 1975). However, this piece argues against Feyerabend's assertion. It claims that modern science is good and aids in liberation because it adds new knowledge to society, gives researchers freedom to explore wider, and sets standard research guidelines to ensure quality work. Feyerabend will counter this argument by asserting that science allows diversity but limits them from going beyond boundaries and does not provide standardized guidelines for research. Instead, it makes researchers slaves of original theories and beliefs.
Modern science aids liberation and enlightenment in society because it allows researchers to add to the available pool of knowledge in various ways. Scientists have taken over almost all aspects of life, informing the world through research. They believe that the answers to all ethical, moral, and knowledge gaps lie in scientific research. For example, the emergence of the COVID-19 disease prompted medical scientists to research and inform the world about the facts of the deadly disease. The research results on this pandemic are available globally through various research databases (Stuart, 2021). The coronavirus pandemic was new, and researchers studied it to add knowledge to the public and provide possible prevention measures. The medical field has a pool of previous research on various pandemics. Therefore, the research about coronavirus would add more knowledge to the existing health information. This means that science does not inhibit freedom of thought. People expand their thought using scientific research knowledge. If science inhibited human thought, people would not bother to reference new research that researchers recently documented.
Research findings in various research processes are often related to previous studies only that they are improved to provide more details. Some research issues are often related and can be unified to explain their relationship. For example, research about electricity and magnetism are two different things that share a similar phenomenon, thus being unified to electromagnetism (Stuart, 2021). In the medical field, research about a particular airborne disease is likely to share some phenomena with other diseases in the category. This means that researchers can combine resea...