Is there anybody here who can tell me more about epistemological anarchism?
Here’s a short summary on it:
Better to read Feyarabend, Against Method, but basically he shows that some very important advances in science - he does case studies - at various points in the History of Science are exceptions to what is considered proper scientific methodology today, each, if I remember right, breaking this or that rule of scientific research. So he thinks that if you close the door on anything that does not follow, rigorously, scientific methodology, you are unnecessarily restricting processes that can lead to knowledge.
There are “rules of thought” that supersede proposed methods for any science. If one violates those rules of thought, then nothing can be science, can be “known”.
So it sounds like Feyerabend is simply mistaken (much like those who constantly misspell his name).
He’s not saying that all research should be accepted as truth, and it would be very hard for him to be simply mistaken, but one would need to read his books to see why that is the case. I can certainly see solid positions against various of his positions, but even his biggest critics acknowledge much of what he describes in the case in the history of science.