Similarly, the correspondence condition too cannot be sustained. By insisting upon the correspondence condition, the traditional philosophers of science overlooked the fact that the new theory might fail to correspond to facts because facts themselves may degenerate to the sense, they are interpreted consciously or otherwise in terms of a theory which is itself questionable and whose questionability we have not realized since our thinking has been constrained by it. Given the fact that all observations are theory-laden, it may be that what we consider to be observationally obvious might be absolutely wrong due to the incorrectness of the theory. Hence, Feyerabend says that a new theory must be allowed to grow, even if it goes against well-known facts.

It may be mentioned here that of the two conditions, the correspondence condition is more primary because the consistency condition can be reduced to it. For, the consistency condition says that a new theory must be consistent with existing theories if the latter are supported by facts. In other words, the consistency condition seeks to guarantee that a new theory corresponds with known facts by being consistent with existing theories. By rejecting both the conditions, Feyerabend advocates that a new theory should not be constrained by the rule that it should first correspond with facts which we already know. In fact, Feyerabend says that we must make deliberate attempt to develop theories which go counter to the so-called known facts.

Feyerabend goes one step further. He challenges his traditional opponents by saying, ‘Give me any norm you like, I will show that it is violated at certain important phases in the history of science, not by oversight or negligence, but consciously and deliberately'. According to him, in the most productive periods of any science, scientists found themselves in situations which are too complex to be tackled by simple rules of thumb which philosophers of science glorify as methodological norms. Since science in its history has violated every possible norm, we must give up the very idea of the scientific method.....................................