I thought it fair to clarify taht Feyarebend had a complex view of Relativism, and certainly did not adhere to the standard and simplistic doctrine of old.

This simplistic relatvism could be summarised as “all cultures have their values and these values are equally true for these cultures, therefore all values are equal.”

Feyerabend departed from this viewpoint by stating that a ‘Live’ investigation of culture realizes that it is always a work in progress, and that some cultures thrive, some fail, some stagnate. The relativism that he promotes therefore is not that “all values are equal” but that they deserve to be considered at any given point in their ‘Live Being’ as equal.

He defines Culture and Nature as Being. And he expounds his theory of cosmological relativism as opposed to the Ontological variety in this way:

Being responds differently, and positively, to many different approaches. Being is like a person who shows a friendly face to a friendly visitor, becomes angry at an angry gesture, remains unmoved by a bore without giving any hint as to the principles that make Him (Her? It? Them?) act the way they do in different circumstances. What we find when living, experimenting, doing research is therefore not a single scenario called ‘the world’ of ‘being’ or ‘reality’ but a variety of responses, each of them constituting a special (and not always well-defined) reality for those who have called it forth. This is relatvism because the type of reality encountered depends upon the approach taken.

Feyerabend is critical of traditional relativistic theories that would (to offer a nod to AC-1′s comments) demand that all views are equally valid in all contexts. But he is equally critical in the traditional responses.

If two parties disagree’, says Popper, ‘this may mean that one is wrong, or the other, or both. It does not mean, as the relativist will have it, that both may be equally right.’

This comment reveals in a nutshell the weakness of all intellectual attacks on relativism. ‘If two parties disagree’ – this means the opponents have established contact and understand each other. Now assume that the opponents come from different cultures. Whose means of communication will they use and how will understanding be reached? … Popper… seems to assume that there exists, basically, a single medium of discourse, that the medium is ‘rational’ in his sense (for example, it obeys simple logical laws), that is consists mainly of talk (gestures, facial expression plays no role), and that everybody has access to it…

Finally Feyerabend challenges the notion that a stumbling block for relativism be the potential deadlock between mutually incompatible things.

Why should it not be possible to say conflicting things about ‘the same situation’ and yet be right? A picture that can be seen in two different ways (Wittgenstein’s duck-rabbit is an example) can be described in two different ways – and both parties will be right. It is a matter of research and not of philosophical fiat to decide whether the world we inhabit resembles a duck-rabbit picture.