ABSTRACT
This paper introduces and reproduces a document from Feyerabend’s Nachlass including: (i) Feyerabend’s 1967 tentative translation into English of an original German typescript reporting the lecture notes of an academic course on magnetic monopoles delivered by physicist Felix Ehrenhaft (1879-1952) at the University of Vienna in the 1947 summer semester; and (ii) Feyerabend’s memoir focusing on Ehrenhaft in postwar Vienna.
In addition to making available to a larger audience Ehrenhaft’s lectures on a highly controversial topic, the publication of Feyerabend’s typescript offers the opportunity to reconsider, delve deeper into and cast a brighter light on a rather neglected aspect in the growing literature on Feyerabend’s thought: the significance of Ehrenhaft for the development of Feyerabend’s intellectual biography.
Acknowledgements
I would like to offer my special thanks to Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend, for her trust and for granting permission to publish Feyerabend's typescript and to quote from Feyerabend's unpublished correspondence; to Verso, for granting permission to reproduce extensively from Feyerabend's published work; and to Joseph Agassi, for generously giving me unconditional access to his archive. I am also indebted to two anonymous referees for providing constructive comments and suggestions that led to substantial improvements in the quality of the paper.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1 The main reason why the typescript has remained unpublished until now is probably connected to the fact that a page of the only copy of the typescript which had been available in Feyerabend’s Nachlass at the Philosophical Archive of the University of Konstanz since the mid-1990s (PF 5-3-3, 37 ss.) was missing (Ehrenhaft 2022 [1947], Appendix 1, p. [2]; see below, n31). In the summer of 2019, I was entrusted by Grazia Borrini-Feyerabend to examine several boxes which Feyerabend had left in California when he finally moved to Switzerland in 1990 and which rested almost forgotten for about three decades in the basement of one of Feyerabend’s closest friends and former TA. The operation unearthed, among several other documents:
Feyerabend’s copy of the original German typescript of the lecture notes of Ehrenhaft’s course (16 ss.);
a typescript of Feyerabend’s English translation of the lecture notes, including 16 figures drawn by hand by Feyerabend (with a blue pen), reproducing corresponding figures in the original German typescript, and several revisions to the typed text made (with a black pen) by Feyerabend’s hand (38 ss.);
four photocopies of the unrevised typescript of Feyerabend’s English translation, including Feyerabend’s hand-drawn figures (38 ss.).
PF 5-3-3 turned out to be an incomplete photocopy of (b). Ehrenhaft
Citation2022 [
Citation1947] provides a faithful reproduction of the typescript. The original pagination is indicated in bold superscript, within square brackets; editor’s comments and interpolations are given within angled brackets.
The following abbreviations are used henceforth in this introduction for references to archival sources: EFA (Archives of the European Forum Alpbach), JW (John W. N. Watkins Collection, LSE Library Archives and Special Collections), PF (Sammlung Paul Feyerabend, Philosophisches Archiv der Universität Konstanz). Added italicizations occurring in quotations are explicitly signalled; all translations from Feyerabend’s German works for which no English translation is available are mine.
2 See Holton Citation1978, 169n20; Trevor Pateman, who was a graduate student in London in 1968–1970 and attended Feyerabend’s classes at the LSE and/or UCL, remembers having received from Feyerabend a copy of the typescript in 1971, delivered by mail from Berkeley (see Pateman 2012).
3 A noteworthy exception is Oberheim Citation2006, Ch. 4 (pp. 116-122); see below, Sec. 3.
4 Ehrehanft features prominently in seven among Feyerabend’s autobiographical accounts; one from the early 1960s, three from the mid-to-late-1970s and one from the early 1980s: respectively, a page of his programmatic paper ‘How to Be a Good Empiricist’ (Feyerabend Citation1963, 23 and n* [92 and n27]); a footnote in the first edition of Against Method (Feyerabend Citation1975, 39–40n5; removed from the following editions); a sketchy memoir included in a letter of Feyerabend to Bechler, 1 January 1976 (reproduced in Feyerabend Citation2020, 29–30); a similar but significantly broader narrative, published verbatim in different venues, in English and German (Feyerabend Citation1977, 66–69 [170-172]; Feyerabend Citation1978a, 110–111 = Feyerabend Citation1979, 219–221 = Feyerabend Citation1988, 276–277); and Feyerabend’s contribution to a collection of reminiscences of Austrian intellectuals about their postwar experience (Feyerabend Citation1983). About ten years later, Feyerabend repeated his recollections on Ehrenhaft in a 1993 interview (Feyerabend Citation1995a, 116–117) and finally returned to them and enriched them with further details in his autobiography (Feyerabend Citation1995b, 66–67). Oberheim Citation2006 is based on Feyerabend 1978a and Feyerabend Citation1995b as well as on Ehrenhaft Citation2022 [Citation1947] (PF 5-3-3; see above, n1).
5 ‘I had many live father figures. Ehrenhaft was one of them and I still praise him’ (Feyerabend to Watkins, 13 January 1976, JW 170).
23 ‘Soldbuch’, PF 9-3-3; ‘Certificate of Discharge’, Apolda 4 July 1945; ‘Kulturbund zur demokratischen Erneuerung Deutschlands, Mitgliedskarte’, 1 January - 12 April 1946; ‘Certificate of Discharge’, Apolda, 11 May 1946 and Vienna, 2 August 1946, PF 9-3-60; ‘Staatliche Hochschule für Musik zu Weimar, Registration form’, 13 March 1946; ‘Staatliche Hochschule für Musik zu Weimar, Registration form’, 2 April 1946; ‘Staatliche Hochschule für Musik zu Weimar, Notice of departure’; ‘Military Government of Germany - Personnel Questionnaire’, 13 June 1946, PF 3-9-15; Feyerabend Citation1995b, Chs 3-6.
24 Feyerabend’s autobiographical account is somewhat confused and does not fit the archival evidence. In its context, the phrase ‘[t]he following semester’ seems to be referring to the winter semester of the 1949–1950 session. However, the typescript explicitly presents its content as reporting Ehrenhaft’s lectures in the 1947 summer semester (see Ehrenhaft Citation2003 [1947] [Citation2003 [1947]], 142; Ehrenhaft Citation2022 [Citation1947], [0]; below, section 2). According to Feyerabend’s student record book, he took only another university course by Ehrenhaft: the seminar, again on single magnetic poles, delivered by Ehrenhaft in the 1948 summer semester (see ‘Student record book 1946-1951’, PF 9-3-65).
25 In his autobiography, the late Feyerabend recalls that he was initially recruited by the Austrian College Society to take shorthand records of the debates that would take place at the 1948 European Forum Alpbach: ‘This was the most decisive step of my life. I would not be where I am today […] had I not accepted [that] offer’ (Feyerabend Citation1995b, 70). Moreover, the lecture notes that Feyerabend took as research assistant to Arthur Pap, during the latter’s Fulbright visiting professorship at the University of Vienna in 1953-54, were instrumental to the publication of Pap 1955 (see Pap 1955, v).
26 Feyerabend used both identical and similar personal stamps as marks to indicate ownership of his books and documents throughout his formative years in postwar Vienna (1946-1955); date stamps can also be frequently found in the books acquired to Feyerabend’s personal library during this time.
29 See ‘Österreichisches College – I. Mitteilungsblatt 1949/1950’, [September 1949], EFA. The parallel Natural Philosophy Workshop of the Austrian College Society, founded in the spring of 1948 under the scientific leadership of Viktor Kraft and the student leadership of Feyerabend, initially meeting on the premises of the University of Vienna, was later named by Feyerabend the ‘Kraft Circle’ and has also been called the ‘Third Vienna Circle’ (see Stadler Citation2006; Kuby Citation2010; Stadler Citation2010). It seems likely that memberships in the Physics, the Natural Philosophy as well as the Mathematics (and possibly other) study groups of the Austrian College Society overlapped considerably.
30 ‘Ehrenhaft is almost printed. I am really looking forward to your comment on him.’ (Feyerabend to Agassi, [September 1967]). ‘Did I send you my translation of Ehrenhaft’s lectures? Read the second appendix (the last seven pages) which is an eyewitness account of Ehrenhaft in Vienna and of a certain dramatic discussion between Ehrenahft, Rosenfeld, Popper et others. I think you will be amused.’ (Feyerabend to Watkins, 17 December 1967, JW 170)
31 Feyerabend’s translation presents the last section of Ehrenhaft’s lecture notes, which in the original German typescript is entitled ‘Photophorese’ – typed in a unique graphic text style but with no additional indication (see Ehrenhaft Citation2003 [1947] [Citation2003 [1947]], 163–164) – as ‘Appendix I / A Lecture on Photophoresis’.
32 See above, n4. This holds particularly for Feyerabend’s main early narrative focusing on Ehrenhaft (Feyerabend Citation1977, 66–69 [170-172]; Feyerabend Citation1978a, 110–111 = Feyerabend Citation1979, 219–221 = Feyerabend Citation1988, 276–277).
33 Feyerabend is answering to the following question of the interviewer: ‘Were there some physicists, some scientists, not only theorists of science, who also encouraged you in your criticism of our idolatry of science?’ (Feyerabend 1994a, 116). In addition to Ehrenhaft, Feyerabend mentions Hans Thirring and Philipp Frank.
34 This quotation continues the one given above, p. 8. Feyerabend is referring to the uneasy combination of the scientists’ empiricist persuasion that observations and experimental results play a crucial role in scientific research and the theoretical entrenchment – tenacious attachment to cherished theories or dogmatic hesitation to reject well-established one – which scientists display when confronted with experimental anomalies.
35 This is typical of Feyerabend’s autobiographical reconstruction and rationalisation of his intellectual trajectory. Feyerabend made similar points about Wittgenstein, Frank and Kuhn, whose influences he came to recognise only in retrospect fully (see, e.g., Feyerabend Citation1978b; 289 and Feyerabend Citation1995b, 103). The assessment of the significance of such late acknowledgements is an especially complex issue due to the ordinary entanglement between the evidential component (the author’s testimony about one’s earlier self) and the reconstructive component (the author’s self-concept at the time of their composition), intensified by the long chronological distance.
36 For the sake of clarity, it must be emphasised that within a fallibilist, hence anti-foundationalist, methodological framework, such as Feyerabend’s, no rejection or falsification, however concrete, is ever final.
37 For Feyerabend’s contemporary understanding of the mythical tradition, along Popperian lines, see Feyerabend Citation1962b.
38 It seems that the envisaged project was eventually dropped. See Feyerabend to Popper, 14 October 1955; 23 December 1955; 6 February 1956; in Feyerabend Citation2020, 196, 211, 219.
39 Pryce (2003) had been Wykeham Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford since 1946 and moved to the University of Bristol in 1954 to take up the Head of the Department of Physics. He was a member of the commission who appointed Feyerabend as lecturer at Bristol (see Feyerabend Citation1995b, 101–102).
40 Interestingly, at the 1957 Colston Research Society Symposium in Bristol, Feyerabend witnessed another significant confrontation between physicists advocating respectively an established and mainstream position and a minority and marginalised position: the theoretical dispute between Léon Rosenfeld who represented the orthodox ‘Copenhagen interpretation’ of quantum theory, and the dissident David Bohm, who was trying to revive de Broglie’s project of a locally realistic, causal and deterministic, ‘hidden-variable interpretation’. On this occasion, however, the minority position temporarily prevailed: ‘Bohm […] turned the tables and made the event into a kind of coming out party for his programme, a victory that did not remain limited to the Symposium auditorium’ (Kožnjak Citation2018, 94). The impact of this event on the development of Feyerabend’s thought has started being properly examined only recently (see Kuby Citation2021), but it seems that the immediate outcome of the controversy may be easily made fit into, and thereby support, Oberheim’s reconstruction of the conceptual genesis of Feyerabend’s theoretical pluralism out of his Ehrenhaft experience.
41 Cf. Oberheim Citation2006, 118n141; the footnote cites the relevant page just passingly and tangentially, without any emphasis.
42 The same passage occurs verbatim in Feyerabend’s long essay ‘Problems of Empiricism’ (Feyerabend Citation1965), which incorporates Feyerabend Citation1963 (cf. Feyerabend Citation1965, 175–176, 249n119).
43 Theoretical pluralism rejects what Feyerabend calls ‘the autonomy principle’: the basic ‘assumption’ or ‘postulate of empirical method’ characterising monistic methodologies according to which ‘the collection of facts for the purpose of test […] which belong to the empirical content of some theory are available whether or not one considers alternatives to this theory’ (22). The far-reaching implications of the principle of relative autonomy of facts, which lies at the very core of Feyerabend’s theoretical pluralism, and the ultimate feasibility of Feyerabend’s methodological proposal deserve and still await a thorough examination in Feyerabend scholarship.
44 Citing Feyerabend Citation1963, 23 [92], Oberheim emphasises that ‘it seems as though at some later point Feyerabend was indeed willing to believe that [‘Eherehaft’s experiments undermined orthodox theory’]’ (Oberheim Citation2006, 141).
45 In the footnote referred to by Oberheim, Feyerabend is elaborating upon the (Popperian) link between methodological dogmatism and political totalitarianism, emphasising that the conscious elimination of alternatives through the suppression of opponents for the preservation of a single, hence dominant, point of view is applied today more liberally with respect to ‘physical theories’ as opposed to ‘political theories’ (Feyerabend Citation1962a, 69n85). Feyerabend made a similar point a few years later when he noticed, with reference to the bloc politics and the nuclear deterrence principle of the Cold War, that ‘[t]he situation in which we live today is characterised by […] the fear of attempting to forcibly remove one of the ideologies […] [which] prevents the reduction of pluralism through physical annihilation of the opponent.’ (Feyerabend Citation1967, 43).
46 A possible reason why Oberheim gives prominence to the arguably covert reference to Ehrenhaft in Feyearbend 1962 and almost neglects the explicit occurrence of Ehrenahft’s name in Feyerabend Citation1963 might be due to the fact that Oberheim’s reconstruction stands firm only if Ehrenhaft is at least evoked in the paper in which Feyerabend first announced his theoretical pluralism, whereas it wavers if Ehrehanft is mentioned only in the follow-up works in which Feyerabend reformulated or adjusted his proposal.
48 See Feyerabend to Bechler, 1 January 1976 in Feyerabend Citation2020, 32–33.
52 ‘It is my belief that science was advanced, and is still being advanced by dilettantes and that experts are liable to bring it to a standstill’ (Feyerabend Citation1970b: [112]); ‘most revolutionaries have unusual developments and often regard themselves as dilettantes.’ (Feyerabend Citation1978a, 40); ‘both scientists [Bohr and Einstein] (and some of their followers such as Max Born) regarded themselves as dilettantes, they defined and approached their problems independently of existing standards. They had no compunction about mixing science and philosophy and so about advancing the cause of both.’ (202-203; cf. 40n25)
53 Interestingly, starting from the mid-1960s, Feyerabend used the terms ‘charlatan’ or ‘dilettante’ as opposed to ‘crank’ as synonyms for, respectively, critical thinker and dogmatic thinker (for Feyerabend’s characterisation of ‘crank’, see Feyerabend Citation1964, 305). I thank Jamie Shaw for drawing my attention to this point (for the treatment of cranks in Feyerabend’s political relativism, see Shaw Citation2021).
55 The passage follows the quotation given above, p. 1; for the omitted part, see above, p. 7.
Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Holton, Gerald. 1978. “Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9 (1978): 161–224. Oberheim, Eric. 2006. Feyerabend’s Philosophy. Berlin: De Gruyter. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1963. “How to Be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological.” In Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar, Vol. II, edited by Bernard Baumrin, 3–39. New York: Interscience Publishers. [Reprinted in Feyerabend 1999: 78–103]. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books. Feyerabend, Paul K. 2020. “Feyerabend’s Formative Years, Vol. 1: Feyerabend and Popper.” In edited by M. Collodel, and E. Oberheim. Chaim, CH: Springer. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1977. “Unterwegs zu Einer Dadaistischen Erkenntnistheorie.” In Unter dem Pflaster Liegt der Strand, 4, 9–88 [Reprinted in Feyerabend, Paul. Thesen zum Anarchismus: Artikel aus der Reihe „Unter dem Pflaster Liegt der Strand, edited by Thorsten Hinz, 113–182. Berlin 1996: Karin Kramer. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1978a. Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Book. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1979. Erkenntnis für Freie Menschen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 19802. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1988. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. 2nd edition. London: Verso. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1983. “Eindrücke 1945-1954.” In Vom Reich zu Österreich, edited by J. Jung, 247–255. Salzburg and Vienna: Residenz. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1995a. “Three Interviews with Paul K. Feyerabend”, interview by R. Parascandolo and V. Hösle (Rome, 15 May 1992). Telos: A Quarterly Journal of Critical Thought, 102 (21 December 1995), 115–149. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1995b. Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Oberheim, Eric. 2006. Feyerabend’s Philosophy. Berlin: De Gruyter. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1995b. Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Dirac, Paul A. M. 1977. “Ehrenhaft, the Subelectron and the Quark.” In History of Twentieth Century Physics: Proceedings of the International School of Physics Enrico Fermi. Course LVII (1972), edited by C. Weiner, 290–293. New York: Academic Press. Holton, Gerald. 1978. “Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9 (1978): 161–224. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Kragh, Helge. 1990. Dirac: A Scientific Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Angetter, Daniela, and Michael Martischnig. 2005. “Ehrenhaft, Felix.” In Biografien österreichischer Physiker[Innen]: Eine Auswahl, 21–22. Vienna 2003: Österreichischen Staatsarchiv. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Holton, Gerald. 1978. “Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9 (1978): 161–224. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Angetter, Daniela, and Michael Martischnig. 2005. “Ehrenhaft, Felix.” In Biografien österreichischer Physiker[Innen]: Eine Auswahl, 21–22. Vienna 2003: Österreichischen Staatsarchiv. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Holton, Gerald. 1978. “Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9 (1978): 161–224. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Angetter, Daniela, and Michael Martischnig. 2005. “Ehrenhaft, Felix.” In Biografien österreichischer Physiker[Innen]: Eine Auswahl, 21–22. Vienna 2003: Österreichischen Staatsarchiv. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Holton, Gerald. 1978. “Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9 (1978): 161–224. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Angetter, Daniela, and Michael Martischnig. 2005. “Ehrenhaft, Felix.” In Biografien österreichischer Physiker[Innen]: Eine Auswahl, 21–22. Vienna 2003: Österreichischen Staatsarchiv. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Kragh, Helge. 1990. Dirac: A Scientific Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Holton, Gerald. 1978. “Subelectrons, Presuppositions, and the Millikan-Ehrenhaft Dispute.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 9 (1978): 161–224. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Kragh, Helge. 1990. Dirac: A Scientific Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Kragh, Helge. 1990. Dirac: A Scientific Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Kragh, Helge. 1990. Dirac: A Scientific Biography. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Santos, Gildo M. 2011. “A Debate on Magnetic Current: The Troubled Einstein–Ehrenhaft Correspondence.” British Journal for the History of Science 44 (3 (September 2011)): 371–400. Kragh, Helge. 1981. “The Concept of the Monopole: A Historical and Analytical Study.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 12 (2 (June 1981)): 159–163. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2003 [1947]. “Einzelne Magnetische Nord-und Südpole und Deren Auswirkung in den Naturwissenschaften: 10 Vorlesungen Gehalten im Sommer-Semester 1947.” Braunbeck 2003 142–164. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2003 [1947]. “Einzelne Magnetische Nord-und Südpole und Deren Auswirkung in den Naturwissenschaften: 10 Vorlesungen Gehalten im Sommer-Semester 1947.” Braunbeck 2003 142–164. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1995b. Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2003 [1947]. “Einzelne Magnetische Nord-und Südpole und Deren Auswirkung in den Naturwissenschaften: 10 Vorlesungen Gehalten im Sommer-Semester 1947.” Braunbeck 2003 142–164. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2003 [1947]. “Einzelne Magnetische Nord-und Südpole und Deren Auswirkung in den Naturwissenschaften: 10 Vorlesungen Gehalten im Sommer-Semester 1947.” Braunbeck 2003 142–164. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1995b. Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Braunbeck, Joseph. 2003. Der Andere Physiker. Das Leben von Felix Ehrenhaft. Graz: Technisches Museum Wien: Vienna - Leykam. Stadler, Friedrich. 2006. “Paul Feyerabend - Ein Philosoph aus Wien.” In Paul Feyerabend – Ein Philosoph aus Wien, edited by F. Stadler, and K. R. Fischer, iv–xxxiv. Vienna–New York: Springer. Kuby, Daniel S. 2010. “Paul Feyerabend in Wien 1946-1955. Das Österreichische College und der Kraft Kreis.” In Auf der Suche Nach Authentischem Philosophieren – Philosophie in Österreich 1951–2000, edited by Michael Benedikt, Renhold Knoll, Cornelius Zehetner, and Franz Schwediauer, 1041–1056. Vienna: Facultas.wuv. Stadler, Friedrich. 2010. “Paul Feyerabend and the Forgotten ‘Third Vienna Circle’.” In Vertreibung, Transformation Und Rückkehr Der Wissenschaftstheorie: Am Beispiel von Rudolf Carnap Und Wolfgang Stegmüller, edited by F. Stadler, 169–187. Vienna–Berlin–Münster: LIT Verlag. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2003 [1947]. “Einzelne Magnetische Nord-und Südpole und Deren Auswirkung in den Naturwissenschaften: 10 Vorlesungen Gehalten im Sommer-Semester 1947.” Braunbeck 2003 142–164. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2003 [1947]. “Einzelne Magnetische Nord-und Südpole und Deren Auswirkung in den Naturwissenschaften: 10 Vorlesungen Gehalten im Sommer-Semester 1947.” Braunbeck 2003 142–164. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1977. “Unterwegs zu Einer Dadaistischen Erkenntnistheorie.” In Unter dem Pflaster Liegt der Strand, 4, 9–88 [Reprinted in Feyerabend, Paul. Thesen zum Anarchismus: Artikel aus der Reihe „Unter dem Pflaster Liegt der Strand, edited by Thorsten Hinz, 113–182. Berlin 1996: Karin Kramer. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1978a. Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Book. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1979. Erkenntnis für Freie Menschen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp. 19802. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1988. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. 2nd edition. London: Verso. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1978b. Der Wissenschaftstheoretische Realismus und die Autorität der Wissenschaften: Ausgewählte Schriften, Band 1. Wiesbaden: Vieweg. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1995b. Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Feyerabend, Paul. 1962b. Knowledge Without Foundations, Two Lectures Delivered on the Nellie Heldt Lecture Fund, Oberlin College: Oberlin (OH). [Reprinted in Feyerabend 1999: 68–77]. Feyerabend, Paul K. 2020. “Feyerabend’s Formative Years, Vol. 1: Feyerabend and Popper.” In edited by M. Collodel, and E. Oberheim. Chaim, CH: Springer. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1995b. Killing Time: The Autobiography of Paul Feyerabend. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kožnjak, Boris. 2018. “The Missing History of Bohm's Hidden Variables Theory: The Ninth Symposium of the Colston Research Society, Bristol, 1957.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 62 (May 2018): 85–97. Kuby, Daniel S. 2021. “Feyerabend’s Re-Evaluation of Scientific Practice: Quantum Mechanics, Realism and Niels Bohr.” In Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays, edited by K. Bschir, and J. Shaw, 132–156. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Oberheim, Eric. 2006. Feyerabend’s Philosophy. Berlin: De Gruyter. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1965. “Problems of Empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, edited by Robert G. Colodny, 145–260. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, Prentice-Hall. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1963. “How to Be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological.” In Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar, Vol. II, edited by Bernard Baumrin, 3–39. New York: Interscience Publishers. [Reprinted in Feyerabend 1999: 78–103]. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1965. “Problems of Empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, edited by Robert G. Colodny, 145–260. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, Prentice-Hall. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1963. “How to Be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological.” In Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar, Vol. II, edited by Bernard Baumrin, 3–39. New York: Interscience Publishers. [Reprinted in Feyerabend 1999: 78–103]. Oberheim, Eric. 2006. Feyerabend’s Philosophy. Berlin: De Gruyter. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1962a. “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism.” In Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. III, edited by Herbert Feigl, and Grover Maxwell, 28–97. Minneapolis 1962: University of Minnesota Press. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1967. “Von den Vorteilen des Kalten Krieges.” In Club Voltaire: Jahrbuch für Kritische Aufklärung, Bd. 3, edited by Gerhard Szczesny, 38–45. Munich: Szczesny Verlag. 372. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1963. “How to Be a Good Empiricist: A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological.” In Philosophy of Science: The Delaware Seminar, Vol. II, edited by Bernard Baumrin, 3–39. New York: Interscience Publishers. [Reprinted in Feyerabend 1999: 78–103]. Collodel, Matteo. 2018. “A Sorcerer’s Apprentice or How Feyerabend Transmuted Popper’s Critical Rationalism Into Theoretical Pluralism and Got Cursed with Incommensurability / Popperian Roots of Feyerabend’s Theoretical Pluralism.” Paper delivered at the 15th Congress of Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (Helsinki University, 7 August 2015) and HOPOS 2018: Twelfth International Congress of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science (University of Groningen, 10 July 2018). (forthcoming). Feyerabend, Paul K. 2020. “Feyerabend’s Formative Years, Vol. 1: Feyerabend and Popper.” In edited by M. Collodel, and E. Oberheim. Chaim, CH: Springer. Collodel, Matteo. 2016. “Was Feyerabend a Popperian? Methodological Issues in the History of the Philosophy of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 57 (June 2016): 27–56. Collodel, Matteo. in preparation. Feyerabend’s Farewell to Critical Rationalism: Chronicle of a Long Goodbye”. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1965. “Problems of Empiricism.” In Beyond the Edge of Certainty: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, edited by Robert G. Colodny, 145–260. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 2, Prentice-Hall. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1970a. “Problems of Empiricism, Part II.” In The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories: Essays in Contemporary Science and Philosophy, University of Pittsburgh Series in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 4, edited by Robert G. Colodny, 275–353. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1975. Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Ehrenhaft, Felix. 2022 [1947]. “Single Magnetic Northpoles and Southpoles and Their Importance for Science: Ten Lectures Delivered at the University of Vienna During the Summer Semester of 1947.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, This Issue. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1970b. “Experts in a Free Society.” The Critic 29 (2) (November–December 1970): 58–69. [Reprinted in Feyerabend 1999: 112–126] Feyerabend, Paul K. 1978a. Science in a Free Society. London: New Left Book. Feyerabend, Paul K. 1964. “Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments in the Logic of Factual Support.” In Critical Approaches to Science and Philosophy, edited by Mario Bunge, 260–308. Princeton: The Free Press. Shaw, Jamie. 2021. “Feyerabend and Manufactured Disagreement: Reflections on Expertise, Consensus, and Science Policy.” Synthese 198 (25 (November 2021)): 6053–6084. Collodel, Matteo. 2015. “‘Flippant Anarchism’: Feyerabend and the Student Movement”.” Paper delivered at the workshop Feyerabend 2015 - Forty Years ‘Against Method’ (St. John’s College, Durham University, 15 July 2015) and at HOPOS 2016: Eleventh International Congress of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science (University of Minnesota, 25 June 2016). (forthcoming).