As you say, the straw version of science doesn't come from Feyerabend, it comes from the scientists and philosophers of science who he's criticizing. It's true that the observation that there is no such thing as the scientific method is boring in and of itself (probably about as interesting as the observation that there's no single method for writing a novel or composing a symphony). However, I think there's a bit more to Feyerabend's critique than that. It's ultimately a challenge to the prestige and power currently enjoyed by the scientific establishment. Feyerabend is attempting to show not merely that this or that conception of the scientific method is flawed, but to establish the much more discomfiting conclusion that scientific progress has frequently been driven by non-rational considerations, so that there is no hope of showing that science is in any sense intellectually superior to competing purported sources of reliable knowledge. This claim might be true or false but it's certainly not boring. If you ask a typical scientist why science ought to get lots of prestige, money and power, the answer will typically depend on the claim that science is in some sense intellectually superior.
It's ultimately a challenge to the prestige and power currently enjoyed by the scientific establishment.
Indeed, it seems to mainly be that. The funny thing was that back in Berkeley circa 1982, philosophy professors had about the level of prestige as chemistry professors, possibly a significant amount more. Chemistry indeed had a bigger building but philosophers seemed to get more invites to the cool parties.
Which is to say that Feyerabend's critique of science was something that resonates with the people wanting to critique this society's values, wanting to critique a society which values what science can accomplish more than say, the activity of carefully contemplating and observing life. But the problem is this approach is really poor and confused place to begin such a critique. We should be directly saying that things that don't advance technology should be valued rather than engaging in "attacking the prestige of science". But of course this kind of irrationalism-as-radicalism has only continued in today world of "call-out culture" and such.
One might call Feyerabend a very early troll of science but with all the weaknesses of trolling-pretending-to-be-politics.
I don't follow you. Perhaps his critique was driven by petty jealousy -- who knows? But if he's right about what has actually driven scientific progress then his point stands.
