- ‘“We’re all Feyerabendians now!” Where science and society meet – The contemporary relevance of Paul K. Feyerabend (1924-1994)’, interviewed by Richard House, Self & Society 6 (2021): 1-23.
- ‘Feyerabend, Science, and Scientism’, Karim Bschir and Jamie Shaw (eds.), Interpreting Feyerabend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 172-190.*
- Review of Paul Feyerabend, Philosophy of Nature, Journal of Philosophy of History 13 (2019) 281–285.*
- 'Feyerabend, Pluralism, and Parapsychology', Bulletin of the Parapsychology Association 10.1 (2018): 5-9.*
- ‘Reawakening to Wonder: Wittgenstein, Feyerabend, and Scientism’, Jonathan Beale and Ian James Kidd (eds.), Wittgenstein and Scientism (London: Routledge, 2017), 101-115.
- ‘Was Feyerabend a Postmodernist?’, International Studies in Philosophy of Science 30.1 (2016): 1-14.
- ‘“What’s So Great about Science?” Feyerabend on Science, Ideology, and the Cold War’, Elena Aronova and Simone Turchetti (eds.), Science Studies during the Cold War and Beyond (Basingstoke: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2016), 55-76.
- Reappraising Feyerabend, co-edited with Matthew Brown, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57 (2016).
- ‘Reappraising Feyerabend’, co-authored with Matthew Brown, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57 (2016): 1-8.
- ‘Feyerabend on Politics, Education, and Scientific Culture’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57 (2016): 121-128.
- ‘Why Did Feyerabend Defend Astrology? Integrity, Virtue, and the Authority of Science’, Social Epistemology 30.4 (2016): 464-482
- Massimo Pigliucci, ‘Was Feyerabend Right in Defending Astrology? A Commentary on Kidd’, Social Epistemology Reply and Review Collective, 5(5) (2016): 1-6.
- ‘How Should Feyerabend have Defended Astrology?’, Social Epistemology Reply and Review Collective, 5(6) (2016): 11-17.
- Massimo Pigliucci, ‘How Should Feyerabend Have Defended Astrology? A Further Reply to Kidd’, Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 5(8) (2016): 10-16.
- Jamie Shaw, 'Feyerabend and the Cranks: On Demarcation, Epistemic Virtues, and Astrology', Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 6(3) (2017): 74-88.
- Massimo Pigliucci, Feyerabend and the Cranks: A Reply to Shaw', Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 6(6) (2016): 1-6.
- Ian James Kidd, 'Cranks, Pluralists, and Epistemic Vices', Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 6(7) (2017): 7-9.
- ‘Feyerabend’s Against Method—40 Years On’, Metascience, 24.3 (2015): 343-349.
- ‘Feyerabend on Science and Education’, Journal of Philosophy of Education 47.3 (2013): 407-422.
- ‘A Pluralist Challenge to ‘Integrative Medicine’: Feyerabend and Popper on the Cognitive Value of Alternative Medicine’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science 44.3 (2013): 392–400.
- ‘Feyerabend on the Ineffability of Reality’, Asa Kasher and Jeanne Diller (eds.), Models of God and Alternative Ultimate Realities, (Dordrecht: Kluwer, 2013), 849-859.*
- ‘Feyerabend, Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Ineffability of Reality’, Philosophia 40.2 (2012): 365-377.
- 'Review of Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (4th ed.) and The Tyranny of Science', Philosophical Investigations 36 (2012): 90-94.
- Review of Paul Feyerabend, The Tyranny of Science, British Journal for the History of Science 44.4 (2012): 576-577.
- Review of Paul Feyerabend, Against Method, British Journal for the History of Science 44.2 (2012): 311-312.
- ‘Objectivity, Abstraction, and the Individual: The Influence of Søren Kierkegaard on Paul Feyerabend’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42.1 (2011): 125-134.
- 'Rethinking Feyerabend: The 'Worst Enemy of Science'?', PLOS Biology 9.10 (2011): e1001166.
- 'Paul Feyerabend and "the Monster Science"', Philosophy Now 74 (2009).
- ‘Method in the Madness: Feyerabend’s Philosophical Pluralism’, Metascience 17 (2008): 469-473.
- Essay review of Eric Oberheim, Feyerabend's Philosophy (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006).
