I love Paul Feyerabend. I believe that the titel "Against Method" was mainly supposed to be provocative. His main point really is to remind us that Popper's view of science is an idealization and that the process of scientific discovery is much more messy in reality. In other words, he is mainly stating facts about the history of science. Very interesting read with great examples. I also highly recommend his book (actually a set of lecture notes) "Science as an Art" in which he dicusses the similarities and the shared history of science and art.
It has always surprised me that the scientific method begins only after a hypothesis is chosen. Forming a hypothesis is often based on inference, even instinct, that has little science behind it. The work of Barbara McClintock comes to mind.
I did Philosophy of Science as a 2nd and 3rd year option in the late 80s at Cambridge. I remember Redwood, but not Lipton. When did you do your thesis?
I graduated in '93 - I loved the course, but definitely butted heads (to the detriment of grades) with the Marxist tendency of the faculty
I have found the History and Philosophy of Science, to be s great preparation for a career as a developer, unfortunately the US CIS trends to disagree making visa/green-card stuff harder than it should have been
Which is neatly surmised in epigram 102.: One can't proceed from the informal to the formal by formal means. -- Alan Perlis, ``Epigrams in Programming''
I too love Feyerabend, and would recommend his autobiography "Killing Time"[1], apart from his great writing, it also puts a great deal of context onto his work, and especially onto his relationships with his contemporaries; most particularly Imre Lakatos
