Feyerabend’s Major Writings

• “Problems of Empiricism”, Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, R.G. Colodny (ed.), New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965, pp. 145–260. (Scholar)
• Against Method, London: Verso, 1975.
• Science in a Free Society, London: New Left Books, 1978.
• Der wissenschaftstheoretische Realismus und die Autorität der Wissenschaften, Braunschweig: Vieweg, 1978.
• Erkenntnis für freie Menschen, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1980.
• Realism, Rationalism, and Scientific Method (Philosophical Papers, Volume 1), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
• Problems of Empiricism (Philosophical Papers, Volume 2), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981.
• Wissenschaft als Kunst, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 1984.
• Farewell to Reason, London: Verso/New Left Books, 1987.
• Against Method, London: 1975; Revised edition, London: Verso, 1988. (Scholar)
• Three Dialogues on Knowledge, Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991.
• Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
• Conquest of Abundance: A Tale of Abstraction Versus the Richness of Being, B. Terpstra (ed.), Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999.
• Knowledge, Science and Relativism (Philosophical Papers, Volume 3), J. Preston (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
• Naturphilosophie, eds. H. Heit & E. Oberheim, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2009.
• The Tyranny of Science, E. Oberheim (ed.), Cambridge: Polity Press, 2011.
• Physics and Philosophy (Philosophical Papers, Volume 4), S. Gattei & J. Agassi (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016.
• Philosophy of Nature, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.

Audio Recordings

• Paul Feyerabend: Wissenschaftstheoretische Plaudiereien (Originaltonaufnahmen 1971-1992), Klaus Sander (ed.), Köln: Supposé, 2000. (Scholar)
• Paul Feyerabend: Stories from Paulino’s Tapes (Private Recordings 1984-1993), Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend & Klaus Sander (eds.), Köln: Supposé, 2001. (Scholar)

Secondary Sources

• Achinstein, P., 1964, “On the Meaning of Scientific Terms”, Journal of Philosophy, 61: 497–509. (Scholar)
• –––, 1968, Concepts of Science, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. (Scholar)
• Agassi, J., 1976, Review of Against Method, Philosophia, 6: 165–177. (Scholar)
• –––, 2002, “A Touch of Malice” (Review of Feyerabend & Lakatos 1999),Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 32: 107–119. (Scholar)
• Alford, C.F., 1985, “Yates on Feyerabend’s Democratic Relativism”, Inquiry, 28: 113–118. (Scholar)
• Andersson, G., 1994, Criticism and the History of Science: Kuhn’s, Lakatos’s and Feyerabend’s Criticisms of Critical Rationalism, Leiden: Brill. (Scholar)
• Athanasopoulos, C., 1994, “Pyrrhonism and Paul Feyerabend: A Study of Ancient and Modern Scepticism”, in Hellenistic Philosophy (Volume 2), K. Boudouris (ed.), Athens: International Center for Greek Philosophy and Culture, pp. 11–29. (Scholar)
• Baertschi, B., 1986, “Le Réalisme Scientifique de Feyerabend”, Dialogue, 25: 267–289. (Scholar)
• Bearn, G.C.F., 1986, “Nietzsche, Feyerabend, and the Voices of Relativism”, Metaphilosophy, 17: 135–152. (Scholar)
• Ben-Israel, I., 1986, “Philosophy and Methodology of Military Intelligence: Correspondence with Paul Feyerabend”, Philosophia, 28: 71–101. (Scholar)
• Bernstein, R.J., 1983, Beyond Objectivism and Relativism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Scholar)
• Bhaskar, R., 1975, “Feyerabend and Bachelard: Two Philosophies of Science”, New Left Review, 94: 31–55. (Scholar)
• Brown, H.I., 1976, “Reduction and Scientific Revolutions”, Erkenntnis, 10: 81–385. (Scholar)
• –––, 1983, “Incommensurability”, Inquiry, 26: 3–29. (Scholar)
• Brown, M.J., 2009, “Models and Perspectives on Stage: Remarks on Giere’s Scientific Perspectivism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part A, 40: 213–220. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016, “The Abundant World: Paul Feyerabend’s Metaphysics of Science”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part A), 57: 142–154. (Scholar)
• Brown, M.J. & Kidd, I.J., 2016, “Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part A), 57: 1–8. (Scholar)
• Bschir, K., 2015, “Feyerabend and Popper on Proliferation and Anomaly Import: On the Compatibility of Theoretical Pluralism and Critical Rationalism”, HOPOS – The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 5: 24–55. (Scholar)
• Burian, R.M., 1984, “Scientific Realism and Incommensurability: Some Criticisms of Kuhn and Feyerabend”, in Methodology, Metaphysics and the History of Science, R.S.Cohen and M.W.Wartofsky (eds.), Dordrecht: D.Reidel, pp. 1–31. (Scholar)
• Butts, R.E., 1966, “Feyerabend and the Pragmatic Theory of Observation”, Philosophy of Science, 33: 383–93. (Scholar)
• Casamonti, M., 2002, “Mach e Feyerabend”, Rivista di Estetica, 42: 86–117. (Scholar)
• Chalmers, A., 1986, “The Galileo that Feyerabend Missed: An Improved Case Against Method”, in J.A.Schuster & R.R.Yeo (eds.), The Politics and Rhetoric of Scientific Method, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 1–31. (Scholar)
• –––, 1978, What is This Thing Called Science, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. (Scholar)
• Churchland, P.M., 1979, Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1981, “Eliminative Materialism and the Propositional Attitudes”, Journal of Philosophy, 78: 67–90. (Scholar)
• Churchland, P.S., 1986, Neurophilosophy: Toward a Unified Science of the Mind/Brain, Cambridgem, Mass.: MIT Press. (Scholar)
• Coffa, J.A., 1967, “Feyerabend on Explanation and Reduction”, Journal of Philosophy, 64: 500–508. (Scholar)
• Collier, J., 1984, “Pragmatic Incommensurability”, in P.D.Asquith & P.Kitcher (eds.), PSA 1984, Volume 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 146–153. (Scholar)
• Collodel, M., 2016, “Was Feyerabend a Popperian?”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 27–56. (Scholar)
• Corvi, R., 1992, I Fraintendimenti della Ragione: Saggio su P.K.Feyerabend, Milan: Vita e Pensiero. (Scholar)
• Couvalis, S.G., 1986, “Should Philosophers Become Playwrights?”, Inquiry, 29: 451–457. (Scholar)
• –––, 1987, “Feyerabend’s Epistemology and Brecht’s Theory of the Drama”, Philosophy and Literature, 11: 117–123. (Scholar)
• –––, 1988a, “Feyerabend, Ionesco, and the Philosophy of the Drama”, Critical Philosophy, 4: 51–68. (Scholar)
• –––, 1988b, “Feyerabend and Laymon on Brownian Motion”, Philosophy of Science, 55: 415–421. (Scholar)
• –––, 1989, Feyerabend’s Critique of Foundationalism, Aldershot: Avebury Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 2001, “Recent Feyerabendiana”, Metascience, 10: 39–49. (Scholar)
• Davidson, D., 1973, “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme”, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Association, 47: 5–20. (Reprinted in Krausz and Meiland 1982). (Scholar)
• Devitt, M., 1979, “Against Incommensurability”, Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 57: 29–50. (Scholar)
• Dürr, H-P., ed., 1980, Versuchungen: Aufsätze zur Philosophie Paul Feyerabend’s, Erster Band, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. (Scholar)
• ––– (ed.), 1981, Versuchungen: Aufsätze zur Philosophie Paul Feyerabend’s, Zweiter Band, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. (Scholar)
• Dusek, V., 1998, “Brecht and Lukács as Teachers of Feyerabend and Lakatos: The Feyerabend-Lakatos Debate as Scientific Recapitulation of the Brecht-Lukács Debate”, History of the Human Sciences, 11: 25–44. (Scholar)
• Everitt, N., 1981, “A Problem for the Eliminative Materialist”, Mind, 90: 428–434. (Scholar)
• Farrell, R.P., 2000, “Rival Theories and Empirical Content Revisited”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31: 137–149. (Scholar)
• –––, 2000, “Will the Popperian Feyerabend please step forward: pluralistic, Popperian themes in the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 14: 257–266. (Scholar)
• –––, 2001, “Feyerabend’s Metaphysics: Process-Realism or Voluntarist-Idealism?”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32: 351–369. (Scholar)
• –––, 2003, Feyerabend and Scientific Values: Tightrope-Walking Rationality, Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Scholar)
• –––, 2005, “Feyerabend and Scientific Values: Tightrope-Walking Rationality”, Philosophy of Science, 72(3): 514–517. (Scholar)
• Finocchiaro, M.A., 1978, “Rhetoric and Scientific Rationality”, in P.D.Asquith & I.Hacking (eds.), PSA 1978, Volume 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 235–246. (Scholar)
• Floyd, J., 2005, “Homage to Vienna: Feyerabend on Wittgenstein (and Austin and Quine)”, in K.R.Fischer & F.Stadler (eds.), Paul Feyerabend (1924–1994)—Ein Philosoph aus Wien, Berlin: Springer Verlag, pp.465–470. (Scholar)
• Foss, J., 2018, “Feyerabendian Pragmatism”, Spontaneous Generations, 9: 26–30. (Scholar)
• Fuller, S., 1995, “Paul Feyerabend: An Appreciation”, Vest, 8: 7–15. (Scholar)
• Gattei, S., 2016, “Feyerabend, Truth, And Relativisms: Footnotes To The Italian Debate”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 87–95. (Scholar)
• Gellner, E., 1975, “Beyond Truth and Falsehood (Review of Against Method)”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 26: 331–342. (Scholar)
• Giedymin, J., 1970, “The Paradox of Meaning Variance”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 21: 257–268. (Scholar)
• –––, 1971, “Consolations for the Irrationalist?”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 22: 39–53. (Scholar)
• –––, 1976, “Instrumentalism and its Critique: A Reappraisal”, in R.S.Cohen, P.K.Feyerabend & M.Wartofsky (eds.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 179–207. (Scholar)
• Giere, R.N., 2016, “Feyerabend’s Perspectivism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 137–141. (Scholar)
• Goldman, M., 1980, “The Material Basis for Progress in Science”, in P.T.Durbin (ed.), Research in Philosophy & Technology, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, pp. 23–29. (Scholar)
• –––, 1982, “Science and Play”, in P.D.Asquith & T.Nickles (eds.), PSA 1982, Volume 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 406–414. (Scholar)
• Grebowicz, G., 2005, “Feyerabend’s Postmodernism”, Studies in Practical Philosophy, 5: 112–133. (Scholar)
• Gunaratne, R.D., 1980, Science, Understanding and Truth, Sri Lanka: Ministry of Higher Education Publications. (Scholar)
• Hacking, I., 1975, Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy?, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1983, Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1991, “Review of P.K.Feyerabend, Against Method, and Farewell to Reason,” Journal of Philosophy, 88: 219–223. (Scholar)
• Hannay, A., 1989, “Politics and Feyerabend’s Anarchist”, in M.Dascal & O.Gruengard (eds.), Knowledge and Politics, Colorado: Westview Press, pp. 241–263. (Scholar)
• Hanson, N.R., 1959, “Five Cautions for the Copenhagen Interpretation’s Critics”, Philosophy of Science, 26: 325–337. (Scholar)
• Harding, S., 2003, Science and Other Cultures: Issues in Philosophies of Science and Technology, London: Routledge. (Scholar)
• –––, 2006, Science and Social Inequality: Feminist and Postcolonial Issues, Champaign: University of Illinois Press. (Scholar)
• Harré, R., 1977, Review of P.K.Feyerabend’s Against Method, Mind, 86: 294–298. (Scholar)
• –––, 1985, “For Method: A Response to Feyerabend”, New Ideas in Psychology, 3: 13–17. (Scholar)
• Heit, H., 2016, “Reasons for Relativism: Feyerabend on the ”Rise of Rationalism“ in Ancient Greece”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 70–78. (Scholar)
• Heller, L., 2016, “Between Relativism and Pluralism: Philosophical and Political Relativism in Feyerabend’s Late Work”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 96–105. (Scholar)
• Hentschel, K., 1985, “On Feyerabend’s Version of Mach’s Theory of Research and its Relation to Einstein”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 16: 387–394. (Scholar)
• Hesse, M.B., 1974, The Structure of Scientific Inference, London: MacMillan. (Scholar)
• –––, 1980, Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science, Sussex: Harvester Press. (Scholar)
• Hollis, M. & Lukes, S. (eds.), 1982, Rationality and Relativism, Oxford: Basil Blackwell. (Scholar)
• Hooker, C., 1972a, Critical Notice of M.Radner & S.Winokur, Analyses of Theories and Methods of Physics and Psychology (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 4), Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 1: 489–507. (Scholar)
• Horgan, J., 1993, “Profile: Paul Karl Feyerabend: The Worst Enemy of Science”, Scientific American, May: pp. 16–17. (Scholar)
• Hoyningen-Huene, P., 1994, “Obituary of Paul K.Feyerabend (1924–1994)”, Erkenntnis, 40: 289–292. (Scholar)
• –––, 1997, “Paul K. Feyerabend”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science 28 (1): 1–18. (Scholar)
• –––, 1999, “Paul K. Feyerabend”, in: J. Nida-Rümelin (ed.), Philosophie der Gegenwart in Einzeldarstellungen, Stuttgart: Kröner, pp. 155–160. (Scholar)
• –––, 1999, “Feyerabends Kritik an Kuhns normaler Wissenschaft”, in J.Nida-Rümelin (ed.), Rationality, Realism, Revision: Proceedings of the 3rd international congress of the Society for Analytical Philosophy, Berlin: de Gruyter. (Scholar)
• –––, 2002, “Paul Feyerabend — ein Postmoderner Philosoph? Ein Portrait”, Information Philosophie, März: 30–37. (Scholar)
• –––, 2006, “More Letters by Paul Feyerabend to Thomas S. Kuhn on Proto-Structure”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 37(4): 610–632. (Scholar)
• Hull, R.T., 1972, “Feyerabend’s Attack on Observation Sentences”, Synthese, 23: 374–399. (Scholar)
• Hung, H-C.E., 1987, “Incommensurability and Inconsistency of Languages”, Erkenntnis, 27: 323–352. (Scholar)
• Jacobs, S., 2003, “Misunderstanding John Stuart Mill on Science: Paul Feyerabend’s Bad Influence”, The Social Science Journal, 40: 201–212. (Scholar)
• Jones, W.B., 1978, “Theory-Ladenness and Theory Comparison”, in P.D.Asquith & I.Hacking (eds.), PSA 1978 (Volume 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 83–92. (Scholar)
• Kadvany, J., 1996, “Reason in History: Paul Feyerabend’s Autobiography”, Inquiry, 39: 141–146. (Scholar)
• Kidd, I.J., 2008, “Method in the Madness: Feyerabend’s Philosophical Pluralism (Review of Oberheim 2006)”, Metascience, 17: 469–473. (Scholar)
• –––, 2011, “Objectivity, Abstraction and the Individual: The Influence of Soren Kierkegaard on Paul Feyerabend”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 42: 125–134. (Scholar)
• –––, 2012, “Feyerabend, Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Ineffability of Reality”, Philosophia, 40: 365–377. (Scholar)
• –––, 2013a, “Feyerabend on the Ineffability of Reality”, in Models of God and Other Ultimate Realities (Volume 2), A.Kasher & J.Diller (eds.), Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 849–860. (Scholar)
• –––, 2013b, “A Pluralist Challenge to ”Integrative Medicine“: Feyerabend and Popper on the Cognitive Value of Alternative Medicine”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44: 392–400. (Scholar)
• –––, 2013c, “Feyerabend on Science and Education”, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 47: 407–422. (Scholar)
• –––, 2015, “ What’s So Great About Feyerabend? ”Against Method“, Forty Years On”, Metascience, 24: 343–349. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016a, “ What’s So Great About Science?: Feyerabend on Science, Ideology, and the Cold War”, E. Aronova & S. Turchetti (eds.) Science Studies during the Cold War and Beyond , Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016b, “Feyerabend on Politics, Education, and Scientific Culture”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 121–128. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016c, “Why did Feyerabend Defend Astrology? Integrity, Virtue, and the Authority of Science”, Social Epistemology, 30: 464–482. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016d, “Was Feyerabend a Postmodernist?”, International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 30: 55–68. (Scholar)
• –––, 2017, “Reawakening to Wonder: Wittgenstein, Feyerabend, and Scientism”, in J.Beale & I.J.Kidd (eds.), Wittgenstein and Scientism, London: Routledge, pp. 101–115. (Scholar)
• Kidd, I. & Brown, M. (eds.), 2016, Reappraising Feyerabend: Special Issue of Studies in History and Philosophy of Science (Part A), volume 57. (Scholar)
• Kleiner, S.A., 1979, “Feyerabend, Galileo and Darwin: How to Make the Best out of what you have—or think you can get”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10: 285–309. (Scholar)
• Koertge, N., 1972, “For and Against Method” (Review of Radner & Winokur), British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 23: 274–285. (Scholar)
• –––, 1980, Review of P.K. Feyerabend’s Science in a Free Society, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 31: 385–390. (Scholar)
• –––, 2013, “Feyerabend, Feminism, and Philosophy”, HOPOS – The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 3: 139–141. (Scholar)
• Kresge, S., 1996, “Feyerabend Unbound”, (Review of Killing Time), Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 26: 293–303. (Scholar)
• Krige, J., 1980, Science, Revolution and Discontinuity, Sussex: Harvester Press. (Scholar)
• Kuby, D., 2016, “Feyerabend’s ”The Concept of Intelligibility in Modern Physics“ (1948)”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 57–63. (Scholar)
• –––, 2018, “Carnap, Feyerabend, and the Pragmatic Theory of Observation”, HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 8: 432–470. (Scholar)
• Kulka, T., 1977, “How Far does Anything Go? Comments on Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism”, Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 7: 277–287. (Scholar)
• Kusch, M., 2016, “Relativism in Feyerabend’s Later Writings”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 106–113. (Scholar)
• Lakatos, I., 1978, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (Philosophical Papers, Volume 1), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Lamb, D, Munévar, G. & Preston, J.M. (eds.), 2000, The Worst Enemy of Science (Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend), Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Laudan, L., 1989, “For Method: or, Against Feyerabend”, in J.R.Brown & J.Mittelstrass (eds.), An Intimate Relation, Dordrecht: Kluwer, pp. 299–317. (Scholar)
• Laymon, R., 1977, “Feyerabend, Brownian Motion, and the Hiddenness of Refuting Facts”, Philosophy of Science, 44: 225–247. (Scholar)
• Leplin, J., 1969, “Meaning Variance and the Comparability of Theories”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 20: 69–75. (Scholar)
• Lloyd, E.A., 1987, “Feyerabend, Mill, and Pluralism”, Philosophy of Science, Supplement, 64: 396–407. (Scholar)
• –––, 1996, “The Anachronist Anarchist”, Philosophical Studies, 81: 247–261. (Scholar)
• Machamer, P.K., 1973, “Feyerabend and Galileo: the Interaction of Theories, and the Reinterpretation of Experience”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 4: 1–46. (Scholar)
• Maia Neto, J.R., 1991, “Feyerabend’s Scepticism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 22: 543–55. (Scholar)
• Malolo Dissakè, E., 2001, Feyerabend: Épistémologie, anarchisme, et société libre, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. (Scholar)
• Margolis, J., 1970a, “Notes on Feyerabend and Hanson”, in M.Radner & S.Winokur (eds.), Analyses of Theories and Methods in Physics and Psychology (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 4), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, pp. 193–195. (Scholar)
• Martin, E.C., 2016, “Late Feyerabend on materialism, mysticism, and religion”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 129–136. (Scholar)
• –––, 2019, ““The Battle is on”: Lakatos, Feyerabend, and the Student Protests”, European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 9: 1–33. (Scholar)
• Martin, M., 1984, “How to be a Good Philosopher of Science: A Plea for Empiricism in Matters Methodological”, in R.S.Cohen & M.Wartofsky (eds.), Methodology, Metaphysics and the History of Science: in Memory of Benjamin Nelson, Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 33–42. (Scholar)
• McEvoy, J.G., 1975, “A ”Revolutionary“ Philosophy of Science: Feyerabend and the Degeneration of Critical Rationalism into Sceptical Fallibilism”, Philosophy of Science, 42: 49–66.
• Mellor, D.H., 1969, “Physics and Furniture”, in N.Rescher (ed.), Studies in the Philosophy of Science (American Philosophical Quarterly Monograph Series, No. 3), Oxford: Basil Blackwell, pp. 171–187. (Scholar)
• Moberg, D.W., 1979, “Are there Rival, Incommensurable Theories?”, Philosophy of Science, 46: 244–262. (Scholar)
• Motterlini, M. (ed.), 1999, For and Against Method, including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method, and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Scholar)
• Munévar, G. (ed.), 1991, Beyond Reason: Essays on the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend, Dordrecht: Kluwer. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998, Evolution and the Naked Truth: A Darwinian Approach to Philosophy, Aldershot: Avebury. (Scholar)
• –––, 2002, “Conquering Feyerabend’s Conquest of Abundance?”, Philosophy of Science, 69: 519–535. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016, “Historical Antecedents to the Philosophy of Paul Feyerabend”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 9–16. (Scholar)
• Musgrave, A., 1976, “Method or Madness? Can the Methodology of Research Programmes be Rescued from Epistemological Anarchism?”, in R.S. Cohen, P.K. Feyerabend & M. Wartofsky (eds.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 457–491. (Scholar)
• –––, 1978, “How to Avoid Incommensurability”, in I. Niiniluoto & R. Tuomela [1979], pp. 337–346. (Scholar)
• Nagel, E., 1979, Teleology Revisited, and Other Essays in the Philosophy and History of Science, New York: Columbia University Press. (Scholar)
• Newton-Smith, W.H., 1981, The Rationality of Science, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Scholar)
• Niaz, M., 2020, Feyerabend’s Epistemological Anarchism: How Science Works and its Importance for Science Education, Cham: Springer. (Scholar)
• Nordmann, A., 1990, “Goodbye and Farewell: Siegel vs. Feyerabend”, Inquiry, 33: 317–331. (Scholar)
• Oberdan, T., 1990, “Positivism and the Pragmatic Theory of Observation”, in A. Fine, M. Forbes & L. Wessels (eds.), PSA 1990, Volume 1, East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 25–37. (Scholar)
• Oberheim, E., 2005, “On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend’s Assault on Conceptual Conservatism”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36(2): 363–390. (Scholar)
• –––, 2006, Feyerabend’s Philosophy, New York: De Gruyter. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016, “Rediscovering Einstein’s Legacy: How Einstein anticipates Kuhn and Feyerabend on the nature of science”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 17–26. (Scholar)
• Oberheim, E., & Hoyningen-Huene, P., 2000, “Feyerabend’s Early Philosophy” (Review of J.Preston, Feyerabend: Philosophy, Science and Society), Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 31: 363–375. (Scholar)
• O’Gorman, F., 1989, Rationality and Relativity: The Quest for Objective Knowledge, Aldershot: Avebury Press, Ch. 3. (Scholar)
• Papineau, D., 1979, Theory and Meaning, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Pera, M., 1994, The Discourses of Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Scholar)
• Phillips, D.L., 1973, Abandoning Method, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. (Scholar)
• Post, H., 1971, “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2: 213–255. (Scholar)
• Preston, J.M., 1995a, “Frictionless Philosophy: Paul Feyerabend and Relativism” History of European Ideas, 20: 963–968. (Scholar)
• –––, 1997a, Feyerabend: Philosophy, Science and Society, Cambridge: Polity Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1997b, “Feyerabend’s Retreat from Realism”, Philosophy of Science, 64: 421–431. (Scholar)
• –––, 1997c, “Feyerabend’s Final Relativism” The European Legacy, 2: 615–620. (Scholar)
• –––, 1998, “Science as Supermarket: ”Post-Modern“ Themes in Paul Feyerabend’s Later Philosophy of Science”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 29: 425–447. (Scholar)
• –––, 2016, “The Rise of Western Rationalism: Paul Feyerabend’s Story”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 79–86. (Scholar)
• Preston, J., Munévar, G. & Lamb, D. (eds.), 2000, The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend, New York: Oxford University Press. (Scholar)
• Putnam, H., 1965, “How Not to Talk about Meaning”, in R.Cohen & M.W.Wartofsky (eds.) Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 2 (In Honor of Philipp Frank), New York: Humanities Press, pp. 117–131. (Scholar)
• –––, 1978, Meaning and the Moral Sciences, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. (Scholar)
• –––, 1981, Reason, Truth, and History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Roe, S.M., 2009, “The Attenuated Ramblings of a Madman: Feyerabend’s Anarchy Examined”, Polish Journal of Philosophy, 3: 67–85. (Scholar)
• Sankey, H., 1994, The Incommensurability Thesis, Aldershot: Avebury Press. (Scholar)
• Scheffler, I., 1966, Science and Subjectivity, Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Co. (Scholar)
• Scheibe, E., 1988, “Paul Feyerabend un die rationalen Rekonstruktionen”, in P.Hoyningen-Huene & G.Hirsch (eds.), Wozu Wissenschaftsphilosophie? Positionen und Fragen zur heutigen Wissenschaftsphilosophie, Berlin: De Gruyter. (Scholar)
• Shapere, D., 1966, “Meaning and Scientific Change”, in R.G.Colodny (ed.), Mind and Cosmos: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, pp. 41–85. (Scholar)
• Shaw, J., 2017, “Was Feyerabend an Anarchist? The Structure(s) of ‘Anything Goes’”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 64: 11–21. (Scholar)
• ––– , 2018, “A Pluralism worth Having: Feyerabend’s Well–Ordered Science”, Ph.D. Dissertation, Philosophy Department, Western University, Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository: 5599. (Scholar)
• ––– , 2017, “Feyerabend and the Cranks: On Demarcation, Epistemic Virtues, and Astrology”, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 6: 74–88. (Scholar)
• Siegel, H., 1989, “Farewell to Feyerabend”, Inquiry, 32: 343–369. (Scholar)
• Solomon, M., 2008, “Norms of Dissent”, in D.Fennell (ed.), Contingency and Dissent in Science Project Discussion Paper Series, London School of Economics CPNSS Discussion Paper, Technical Report 0908. (Scholar)
• Sorgner, H., 2016, “Challenging Expertise: Paul Feyerabend vs. Harry Collins & Robert Evans on democracy, public participation and scientific authority”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 57: 114–120. (Scholar)
• Stadler, F., 2008, “Paul Feyerabend and the Forgotten Third Vienna Circle”, in R. Scazzieri and R. Simili (eds.), The Migration of Ideas, Cambridge, Mass.: Watson, pp. 203–244. (Scholar)
• Stadler, F., and Fischer, K. R. (eds.), 2006, Paul Feyerabend: Ein Philosoph aus Wien, Vienna: Springer. (Scholar)
• Staley, K., 1999, “Logic, Liberty, and Anarchy: Mill and Feyerabend on Scientific Method”, The Social Science Journal, 36: 603–614. (Scholar)
• Suppe, F. (ed.), 1977, The Structure of Scientific Theories, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Scholar)
• –––, 1989, The Semantic Conception of Theories and Scientific Realism, Urbana: University of Illinois Press. (Scholar)
• Szumilewicz, I., 1977, “Incommensurability and the Rationality of the Development of Science”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 28: 345–350. (Scholar)
• Tambolo, L., 2014, “Pliability and Resistance: Feyerabendian Insights into Sophisticated Realism”, European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 4: 197–213. (Scholar)
• –––, 2015, “A Tale of Three Theories: Feyerabend and Popper on Progress and the Aim of Science”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 51: 33–41. (Scholar)
• Theocharis, T. & Psimopoulos, M., 1987, “Where Science Has Gone Wrong”, Nature, 329: 595–598. (Scholar)
• Thomason, N., 1994, “The Power of ARCHED Hypotheses: Feyerabend’s Galileo as a Closet Rationalist”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 45: 255–264. (Scholar)
• Tibbetts, P., 1976, “Feyerabend on Ideology, Human Happiness, and the Good Life”, Man and World, 9: 362–371. (Scholar)
• Townsend, B., 1971, “Feyerabend’s Pragmatic Theory of Observation and the Comparability of Alternative Theories”, in R.C.Buck & R.S.Cohen (eds.), PSA 1970 (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Volume 8), Dordrecht: D. Reidel, pp. 202–211. (Scholar)
• Trigg, R., 1973, Reason and Commitment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. (Scholar)
• Tsou, J.Y., 2003, “Reconsidering Feyerabend’s Anarchism”, Perspectives on Science: Historical, Philosophical, Social, 11(2): 208–235. (Scholar)
• Van Fraassen, B.C., 1980, The Scientific Image, Oxford: Clarendon Press. (Scholar)
• Van Strien, M., 2020, “Pluralism and Anarchism in Quantum Physics: Paul Feyerabend’s Writings on Quantum Physics in relation to his General Philosophy of Science”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 80: 72–81. (Scholar)
• Watkins, J.W.N., 1984, Science and Scepticism, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. (Scholar)
• Weckert, J., 1986, “The Theory-Ladenness of Observations”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 17: 115–127. (Scholar)
• Weimer, W.B., 1980, “For and Against Method: Reflections on Feyerabend and the Foibles of Philosophy”, Pre/Text, 1–2: 161–203. (Scholar)
• Werth, R., 1980, “On the Theory-Dependence of Observations”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 11: 137–143. (Scholar)
• Wisdom, J.O., 1974, “The Incommensurability Thesis”, Philosophical Studies, 25: 299–301. (Scholar)
• Worrall, J., 1978a, “Against Too Much Method”, Erkenntnis, 13: 279–295. (Scholar)
• –––, 1978b, “Is the Empirical Content of a Theory Dependent On Its Rivals?” in I.Niiniluoto and R.Tuomela (eds.), The Logic and Epistemology of Scientific Change (Acta Philosophica Fennica, Volume 30), 298–310. (Scholar)
• –––, 1991, “Feyerabend and the Facts”, in Munévar (ed.), [1991], pp. 329–353. (Scholar)
• Yates, S., 1984, “Feyerabend’s Democratic Relativism”, Inquiry, 27: 137–142. (Scholar)
• –––, 1985, “More on Democratic Relativism: A Response to Alford”, Inquiry, 28: 450–453. (Scholar)
• Yuann, J. J., 2007, “A Naturalistic Approach to Scientific Methodology: A Comparative Study of O. Neurath and P. Feyerabend”, in Chienkuo Michael Mi &R.L.Chen (eds.), Naturalized Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, Amsterdam & New York: Rodopi, pp. 171–196. (Scholar)
• Zahar, E., 1977, “Mach, Einstein, and the Rise of Modern Science”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 28: 195–213. (Scholar)
• –––, 1978, “Theorienkonflikt und die Steurerung der Erkenntnis”, in O.Molden, (ed.), Konflikt und Ordnung: Europäisches Forum Alpbach, Vienna: Molden Verlag, 1977, pp. 234–239. (Scholar)
• –––, 1981, “Second Thoughts About Machian Positivism: A Reply to Feyerabend”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 32: 267–276. (Scholar)
• –––, 1982, “Feyerabend on Observation and Empirical Content”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 33: 397–409. (Scholar)