Abstract

The monism inherent in Kuhnian normal science was abhorrent to Feyerabend, who advocated pluralism about the content and methodology of science and other systems of knowledge. This conflict was articulated most clearly in Feyerabend’s letters to Kuhn critiquing a draft of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, in which he also accused Kuhn of disguising his normative philosophy as history. One important place where monism and pluralism clash is education. Feyerabend, Popper and others argued that Kuhn’s notion of normal science advocated dogmatic science education that would stifle democracy and innovation.

The Kuhn–Feyerabend conflict was actually not as severe as it may appear: Feyerabend respected the autonomy of diverse cultural and epistemological traditions, which are often monistic within themselves; Kuhnian revolutions require the presence of competing paradigms during periods of extraordinary science. Pluralism can accommodate local monism, allowing the advantages of both the liberal epistemology of Feyerabend and the discipline of Kuhnian normal science. Maintaining multiple paradigms within a field of study produces the benefits of toleration while keeping the advantages of normal science within each paradigm. However, a more mature pluralism would also facilitate productive interactions between different systems of practice. In science education, too, it is possible to ameliorate dogmatism while respecting the necessities of professional training. Tolerant pluralism is already present in science education to a surprising extent, and we can strengthen it, and also introduce interactive pluralism.