Graduate studies at Western
Journal for General Philosophy of Science 13 (1):99-109 (1982)
|Abstract||Summary This paper presents an immanent criticism of Lakatos' reconstruction of the degenerating phase of Bohr's atomic theory. That is to say, the historiographical methods used are exclusively of a Lakatosian kind. Such a closer Lakatosian look at the historical episode in question shows that Lakatos' own reconstruction is incorrect on three essential points. These are the role of the correspondence principle, the position of the hard core in Bohr's programme, and the presence of important novel predicted facts. I conclude that these defects are irreparable within the framework of Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programmes|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Brendan P. Larvor (1997). Lakatos as Historian of Mathematics. Philosophia Mathematica 5 (1):42-64.
James T. Cushing (1982). Models and Methodologies in Current Theoretical High-Energy Physics. Synthese 50 (1):5 - 101.
Michael Cuffaro (2010). The Kantian Framework of Complementarity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 41 (4):309-317.
Elie G. Zahar (2001). The Interdependence of the Core, the Heuristic and the Novelty of Facts in Lakatos's MSRP. Theoria 16 (3):415-435.
Tony Smith, Marx's Theory of Social Forms and Lakatos's Methodology of Scientific Research Programs.
Bill Wringe (2002). Is Folk Psychology a Lakatosian Research Program? Philosophical Psychology 15 (3):343-358.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads3 ( #213,434 of 722,947 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,947 )
How can I increase my downloads?