The main purpose of this paper is to compare two pluralistic approaches to knowledge, Goodman’s theory of worldmaking and Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism. It therefore examines firstly, the concept of world-versions, which according to Goodman create our worlds and at the same time are crucial for achieving a better understanding of reality; and secondly, the concept of alternative theories which are built upon pluralism and, according to Feyerabend, secure knowledge and make scientific progress possible. Feyerabend’s concept has been rejected by many, seemingly for its lack of limitations. In line with this argument, I propose that based on the comparison of these two pluralistic approaches, the alternative theories can be understood as a part of worldmaking, for Goodman’s theory has wider applicability since it encompasses not only science but also art. Furthermore, I suggest adopting Goodman’s principle of rightness, the criterion of functionality in his worldmaking, as a criterion within Feyerabend’s methodological anarchism when establishing the prevailing theory. It is to be expected that such a juxtaposition will uncover inconsistencies, in particular regarding boundless relativism and the vague terminology in both conceptions.
This study discusses the extent to which Goodman’s constructivist conception of worldmaking may serve the needs of scientific practice. I argue that worldmaking should help us retain a common methodological order and a basic framework for scientific pluralism. In this way it should provide us not only with better scientific knowledge but also with a greater understanding of the world in general that would be inclusive of both scientific and nonscientific disciplines. The main purpose of this paper is to show that, if revisited, Goodman’s idea of versions, including even mutually exclusive scientific theories, can aid the gradual progress of pluralistic science. Taking the prevailing criticism of Goodman’s conception into account, I argue that worldmaking can serve as a methodological apparatus for scientific disciplines because it presents a position of moderated constructivism which, thanks to the variable criterion of rightness, offers a way to maintain both relativism and skepticism. and Studie se zaměřuje na aplikovatelnost Goodmanovy konstruktivistické koncepce světatvorby pro potřeby vědecké praxe. Světatvorba, jakožto metodologický aparát, by měla sloužit k posílení vědeckého pluralismu a měla by vědám (i nevědám) poskytnout metodologický řád a strukturu. Tímto způsobem bychom měli dosáhnout nejen přesnějšího vědeckého popisu, ale i hlubšího všeobecného porozumění světu, které zahrnuje jak vědecké, tak i nevědecké disciplíny. Hlavním cílem studie je poukázat na to, že Goodmanova teorie verzí světa, která zahrnuje i vzájemně neslučitelné vědecké teorie, může podpořit pokrok pluralisticky pojaté vědy, je-li interpretovaná v umírněné formě. Po zhodnocení stávající kritiky a vypořádání se s námitkami, může světatvorba sloužit jako metodologický aparát pro vědecké disciplíny, protože díky pozici umírněného konstruktivismu poskytuje prostor vědeckému pluralismu, přičemž zabraňuje relativismu i skepticismu.