Week 2: Imre Lakatos Flashcards
Imre Lakatos
Known for his methodology of scientific research programs, which tries to avoid the problems with the views of Popper and Kuhn
“Philosophers of science should be able to formulate a logic of rational scientific decision making” - Popper. Does Lakatos agree?
Yes.
“Philosophers (and historians) of science can only describe the psychology of scientific change” - Kuhn. Does Lakatos agree?
No.
“There is no rational cause for a Kuhnian crisis … it is a contagious panic …
A change to a new paradigm is a bandwagon effect … Thus in Kuhn’s view a scientific revolution is irrational, a matter for mob psychology.”
“Scientists must aim to rigorously eliminate theories by trying to falsify them” - Popper. Does Lakatos agree?
No
“Scientists should hold on to a theory in the face of anomalies until another theory is available” - Kuhn. Does Lakatos agree.
Yes
Is there anything where Lakatos agrees with both Popper and Kuhn’s view or stand in the middle?
Yes.
“Scientists should always remain critical of their theories and continuously test them” - Popper
” In times of normal science scientists should not be critical to their theories” - Kuhn
Lakatos structure of research programs
The structure of research programs:
- Hard core
- Protective belt
The heuristics of research programs:
- negative heuristics
- positive heuristics
The fate of research programs:
- progressive
- degenerating
Hard core: structure
One or more very basic hypotheses that form the basis of a research endeavour
Protective belt: structure
Additional hypotheses that provide support to the hard core but tat are less fundamental
Heuristics of research programs
Heuristics are rules or guidelines about which courses of action scientists should and should not pursue.
Negative heuristics: Do not meddle with the hard core!
Positive heuristics: Expand the protective belt stepwise, from simple to more complex.
Progressive research program
Has a growing protective belt of hypotheses that leads to new predictions that can be tested
Degenerating research program
Fails to grow its protective belt and may in time start to lose its coherence
What can Lakatos philosophy say about failure and success of research programs?
Lakatos’s philosophy can only make sense of
the success and failure of research programs with the benefit of hindsight. It cannot tell us when it is rational to abandon a research program, or when pursuing a research
program stops being scientific.
BADM and BAND according to Lakatos
BADM and BAND both count as science. Both have a ‘hard core’ which their supporters try to enlarge with a ‘protective of testable hypotheses’
BADM has been a progressive research program for a long time. BAND hasn’t.
Without the generation of new testable hypotheses, the prospect for BAND seem dire.
Summary
Lakatos followed Kuhn in focusing on the community-level commitments of scientists
- research programs resemble paradigms (to some extent)
- research programs “grow” in a permanents ocean of anomalies
* A field of research can have several rivalling research programs
Lakatos followed Popper in his desire to formulate a rational methodology of scientific practice.
- there is a method to science: protect the hard core, expand the protective belt. Scientists aim for progressive research programs
- But: there are no clear criteria for when to abandon a degenerating research program. It is not clear when ‘failing science’ become pseudoscience.
