According to Feyerabend compared ellemezlik is not synonymous with the idea.

On the contrary ellemez Feyerabend alternatives for the comparison of theories considers
that offers us a more healthy way. Measured in the presence of alternatives to test existing
theories Ellemez alternatives before us as a better way to
stands. For this reason, Feyerabend, ellemezlik thesis karlatrlamazln theories can be
tested and the empirical content of theories is not to suggest that increasing the use to defend
pluralism.

They conflict with each other in order to have a combination of logical theories can not be
assess the progress of science in the form of no benefit to us. Standard or as an alternative to the
accepted theory and a theory is logically contradictory to deny, rather than ellemez theories
that Feyerabend argues that for this reason bahsedilemeyeceini a contradiction. Ellemez
theories are comparable with each other, and that the testing standard accepted theory or
scientific progress criticized because it increases the chances of science in order to provide the
most useful additive.
The existence of concepts, theories, pluralism and scientific progress with Ellemez
provides. Ellemez theories, ideas and new ways of testing us to the way of
show. To this science, or just the comparison of measured theories
the truth is more efficient than doing the comparison. In addition, the comparison of theories can
not be measured can be measured according to Feyerabend comparison of theories creates a
paradoxical situation. Because they apparently contradictory theories are measured relative to
each other must reject any theory which prevents the possibility of contributing to the
comparison and appearance. For this reason, in the case of Feyerabend and to each other by

competing with each other in a way that contributes to exist in theory these theories must be
ellemez.

He's right in many respects but I think he pushed things a little too further. For example I don't
think that the assumption of incommensurability is justified neither that there is no minimal
scientific method (I'd argue rather that different sciences might have different methodologies,
some 'in evolution', but all sciences have in common a minimum of requirements at the basis).

In my view he is dangerously close to relativism. It's right now that by 'everything goes' he does
not understand that we cannot make a difference between alternatives (actually he proposes a
non prescriptive list of alternative programmes) but in my view this is not at all satisfactory.
Indeed his idea is based on the view that 'crackpot' programmes will disappear 'naturally' for no
one will be interested in them on medium and long term.

Unfortunately this is far from being the default in practice for people are not necessarily rational
beings. If we accept the mere non precriptive list of Feyerabend then everyone who happen to
have a theory (preferable explaining as much as the best existing alternatives in a certain
interpretation of observational data) is as entitled as professional scientists to claim that his
proposal is 'normal science'. Why should we label 'science' only what scientists say?

Additionally such people might claim equal resources and the introduction of their programmes
as obligatory courses in schools for their view appears as justified as what orthodox science say.
For example, I'm afraid, there is little prospect that intelligent design will be abandoned (at least

the claim that it is on equal foot with darwinism assuming ceteris paribus) in the future...on the
contrary I'd argue that at least on medium term the number of its sustainers will grow and it will
be not at all a surprise to see that under their pressure it will become the 'normal science' of
tomorrow at least in some parts of the world...The same is valid with astrology, more and more
claim that it is a science (I've seen even people studying astronomy at the highest level possiblealmost finishing their PhD degree-practicing astrology, moreover convinced beyond doubt that
astrology is a science!).

This is why I argue that we need a stronger differentiation between alternatives (though itself not
strongly prescriptive). Thus while for example we cannot totally discard intelligent design we
should take in account such things as reliabilism, simplicity, capacity of unification, falsifiability,
capacity to make novel predictions etc to make a clearer difference between alternatives on short
and medium term at least (I meant at least some tenable variants of intelligent design though
unfalsifiable currently; one of them could still become, potentially, the first choice research
program of tomorrow if some new 'data', will 'corroborate' it in some of its currently non
falsifiable assumptions!). By doing so it's clear that intelligent design cannot be the first choice
research program, it is not even on equal foot with darwinism though at least some variants can
be seen as being empirically equal with darwinism (for example those variants who sustain that
only macro evolution is attributable to a Creator).

While such an approach is not strongly prescriptive (scientists, or people in general, can work at
what research programmes they wish without the fear of jeopardizing their further career,
everything goes here) it presents a clear 'ladder of preferences' at least on short and medium term

in what the justification part is concerned. There is no sufficient reason to think that the actual
'normal science' (the actual first choice research program still progressive and the best existing
alternative) will ever remain in the same position (or that all programs which today seems
stagnant or degenrative will never become 'normal science') indeed but we just have more
reasons currently, going well beyond mere empiricism (which in many cases is not enough to
make the difference), to make a clear classification between programmes. The demarcation
between science and pseudo science / metaphysics might not be sharp and rationality might
change with time but it still can be argued that we can define currently a clear non-algorithimic
standard of rationality while encouraging alternative thinking and always remaining open to the
possibility of strongly non trivial paradigm shift...