Imre Lakatos' philosophical and scientific papers are published here in two volumes. Volume I brings together his very influential but scattered papers on the philosophy of the physical sciences, and includes one important unpublished essay on the effect of Newton's scientific achievement. Volume II presents his work on the philosophy of mathematics (much of it unpublished), together with some critical essays on contemporary philosophers of science and some famous polemical writings on political and educational issues. Imre Lakatos had (...) an influence out of all proportion to the length of his philosophical career. This collection exhibits and confirms the originality, range and the essential unity of his work. It demonstrates too the force and spirit he brought to every issue with which he engaged, from his most abstract mathematical work to his passionate 'Letter to the director of the LSE'. Lakatos' ideas are now the focus of widespread and increasing interest, and these volumes should make possible for the first time their study as a whole and their proper assessment. (shrink)

Imre Lakatos' philosophical and scientific papers are published here in two volumes. Volume I brings together his very influential but scattered papers on the philosophy of the physical sciences, and includes one important unpublished essay on the effect of Newton's scientific achievement. Volume 2 presents his work on the philosophy of mathematics (much of it unpublished), together with some critical essays on contemporary philosophers of science and some famous polemical writings on political and educational issues.

Imre Lakatos' philosophical and scientific papers are published here in two volumes. Volume I brings together his very influential but scattered papers on the philosophy of the physical sciences, and includes one important unpublished essay on the effect of Newton's scientific achievement. Volume 2 presents his work on the philosophy of mathematics (much of it unpublished), together with some critical essays on contemporary philosophers of science and some famous polemical writings on political and educational issues.

Today it is well known that the philosophical and methodological concepts of K. Popper, which became the basis for the latest theories in the logic of science, constituted, at one stage in their evolution, an attempt to save neopositivism under the pretense of criticizing it. The militant anti-Marxist nature of Popper's sociological views and his intense anticommunism created considerable popularity for him in reactionary circles not only as a sociologist and political scientist but as a philosopher. British Conservatives and German (...) right-wing Social Democrats, who previously had had nothing to do with his methodology of science, now flaunted it. Ultimately, the opinion of I. Lakatos that Popper's methodology is the most significant phenomenon in twentieth-century philosophy found many proponents, and was applied to Popper's philosophy of history as well . In 1965 Karl Popper was elevated to knighthood, and the teaching of Sir Karl became the world-view doctrine of the right wing of the German Social Democrats. His methodology was taken into the arsenal of many anticommunists of the West. Popper is hailed as "the most influential" of the philosophers of our day. (shrink)

The central idea of Lakatos’ quasi-empiricism view of the philosophy of mathematics is that truth values are transmitted bottom-up, but only falsity can be transmitted from basic statements. As it is falsity but not truth that flows bottom-up, Lakatos emphasizes that observation and induction play no role in both conjecturing and proving phases in mathematics. In this paper, I argue that Lakatos’ view that one cannot obtain primitive conjectures by induction contradicts the history of mathematics, and therefore (...) undermines his quasi-empiricism theory. I argue that his misconception of induction causes this view of Lakatos. Finally, I propose that Wittgenstein’s view that “mathematics does have a grammatical nature, but it is also rooted in empirical regularities” suggests the possibility to improve Lakatos’ view by maintaining his quasi-empiricism while accepting the role induction plays in the conjecturing phase. (shrink)

When I was pondering what I should write about Lakatos in this article, I ran into what seemed an insuperable difficulty. On one hand I thought that part of my job should be to give a portrait of Lakatos' personal manner. This would be informative from the point of view of history of thought, as it would help people read his works with greater understanding. And it would be interesting, if I succeeded at all: everyone who knew (...) class='Hi'>Lakatos would agree that he was one of the most remarkable people they had met. On the other hand memorial essays tend to give portraits whic are all sweetness and light. But such a portrait of Lakatos would not b a portrait of Lakatos. Everyone has his dark and his light side; sometimes we see one, occasionalley the other. But in Lakatos both were simultaneously and brilliantly displayed at every instant. (shrink)

Imre Lakatos' "methodology of scientific research programs" and Alasdair MacIntyre's "tradition-constituted enquiry" are two sustained attempts to overcome the assumptions of logical empiricism, while saving the appearance that theory-change is rational. The key difference between them is their antithetical stand on the issue of incommensurability between large-scale theories. This divergence generates other areas of disagreement; the most important are the relevance of the historical record and the presence of decision criteria that are common to rival programs. I show that (...) Lakatos' rejection of the incommensurability thesis and dismissal of actual history are motivated by the belief that neither are compatible with the rationality of theory-change. If MacIntyre can deny the necessity of dispensing with the historical record, and show that incommensurability and the consequent absence of shared decision criteria are compatible with rationality in theory-change, then Lakatos' argument will lose its force, and MacIntyre will better honor the intention to take seriously the historicality of science. I argue that MacIntyre can dissolve tensions between incommensurability and rationality in theory-change if he is able, first, to distinguish a sense of the incommensurability thesis that preserves genuine rivalry between theories, and second, to show that the possibility of rationality in theory-change depends not on the presence of common decision criteria, but on the fact that traditions can fail by their own standards. After reconstructing and examining the argument, I conclude that the notion of a tradition's "internal failure" is coherent, but that it leaves crucial questions about the epistemology and ontology of traditions that must be answered if MacIntyre's proposal is to constitute a genuine improvement on Lakatos. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that aim-oriented empiricism (AOE), a conception of natural science that I have defended at some length elsewhere[1], is a kind of synthesis of the views of Popper, Kuhn and Lakatos, but is also an improvement over the views of all three. Whereas Popper's falsificationism protects metaphysical assumptions implicitly made by science from criticism, AOE exposes all such assumptions to sustained criticism, and furthermore focuses criticism on those assumptions most likely to need revision if science (...) is to make progress. Even though AOE is, in this way, more Popperian than Popper, it is also, in some respects, more like the views of Kuhn and Lakatos than falsificationism is. AOE is able, however, to solve problems which Kuhn's and Lakatos's views cannot solve. [Back to Top]. (shrink)

Summary I try to apply Lakatos's metacriterion of the rationality of normative philosophies of science to normative political theories, stressing that Lakatos's metacriterion is not only an extension of Popper's idea of tests by potentially falsifyingdescriptive basic judgments to tests by potentially falsifyingnormative judgments. Rather, its application is a test by demonstrating the tested theory's capability of reconstructing its own history as rational. Finally I argue that the tradition of utilitarian political theories is fittest to be confirmed by (...) a Lakatosian test. (shrink)

In this paper I explore possibilities of bringing post-positivist philosophies of empirical science to bear on the dynamics of mathematical development. This is done by way of a convergent accommodation of a mathematical version of Lakatos's methodology of research programmes, and a version of Kuhn's account of scientific change that is made applicable to mathematics by cleansing it of all references to the psychology of perception. The resulting view is argued in the light of two case histories of radical (...) conceptual innovations. (shrink)

I feel very honoured to be able to attend this international conference entitled 'Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: 20 Years After' dedicated to the memory of Imre Lakatos. I am grateful to Prof. Kostas Gavroglou, Secretary of the Organizing Committee, for his invitation. Today I want to use this chance to give a brief account of the dissemination of Lakatos's doctrines in China. Although Lakatos was already famous in Western academic circles of philosophy of science as (...) early as the 1960s because of his distinguished contributions to both the philosophy of mathematics and the philosophy of science, yet his doctrines began their dissemination in China only after the beginning of the 1980s.1 In 1979, when I worked in the Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), I started Ziran Kexue Zhexue Wenti Congkan (Journal for Philosophical Problems in Natural Sciences), and held the post of editor-in-chief. The second issue of 1980 (appearing on June 25, 1980) published the following papers by Lakatos. (1) 'The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes' (translated passages by Qui Renzong, read and revised by Fan Dainian from Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, 1978, pp. 47-52,68-72). (2) 'A Renaissance of Empiricism in the Recent Philosophy of Mathematics?' (Translated by Lin Xiashui, read and revised by Qiu Renzong from British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27, pp. 201-23, 1976) The second part of this paper was published in the third issue of the same journal (appearing on September 25, 1976). These are probably the first translations of Lakatos' papers to appear in China. (shrink)

Resumen Un diagnóstico más que difundido acerca de la obra de Lakatos señala que su proyecto soslayó por completo la cuestión de la verdad como parte central del análisis del conocimiento científico. En una línea semejante, Hacking afirma que Lakatos encontró en la metodología un sustituto para la verdad. Incluso quienes descreen de estas interpretaciones acuerdan respecto de que Lakatos falla en dar cuenta de la relación entre el desarrollo del conocimiento y el aumento de la verosimilitud. (...) En el presente trabajo argumento que el problema de la verdad es central al proyecto filosófico de Lakatos, y es posible construir una interpretación alternativa en la que su proyecto de establecer un vínculo entre método y verdad pueda tenerse como exitoso. Propongo una lectura davidsoniana que adjudica a Lakatos un realismo epistémico.A widespread interpretation of Lakatos’ work says his project completely sidestepped the question of truth as a central part of the analysis of scientific knowledge. In a similar vein, Hacking states that Lakatos found in methodology a substitute for truth. Even those who are skeptical of these interpretations agree that Lakatos failed to give an account of the relation between the growth of knowledge and increasing verisimilitude. In this paper I maintain that the problem of truth is central to Lakatos’ philosophical project, and it is possible to develop an alternative interpretation in which his project to establish a link between method and truth can be seen as successful. I put forward a Davidsonian interpretation that ascribes to Lakatos an epistemic realism. (shrink)

Lakatos’s approach to prediction and novel facts is of considerable interest. Prediction appears in his conception in at least three different levels: a) as an important aim of the research programs; b) as a procedure -a key method- for increasing our scientific knowledge both theoretically and empirically; and c) as the way to assess the scientific character of knowledge claims -means for evaluating results-. At all these levels he envisions a close connection between prediction and novel facts. The paper (...) has four aims. First, to examine his concept of “prediction” in Lakatos’s MSRP, taking into account different aspects (semantical, logical, epistemological, methodological and axiological). Second, to clarify the notion of “novel facts”, which requires the consideration of the various ways in which new facts can be understood. Third, to examine the prediction of novel facts as criterion of appraisal (theoretical, empirical and heuristical). Fourth, to explore Lakatos’s approach (i.e., the concept of prediction linked to novel facts) in connection with the field of economics, in order to shed new light on issues that have been discussed in recent years. (shrink)

Summary It is shown that, besides differences in emphasis on structural and developmental aspects, there is far reaching agreement between the views of Nagel and Lakatos on structure and development of science. I argue that both views can interact very fruitfully, and by way of illustration a confrontation of Nagel's notion of a model with Lakatos' notion of a positive heuristic is pursued in some detail. The conclusion is that for microscopic theories, a Lakatosian positive heuristic is exactly (...) the same entity as a substantive model in the sense of Nagel, but that for phenomenological theories there is (as yet) no such structural concept as a model available that can be identified with a Lakatosian positive heuristic. (shrink)

Gerhard Schurz [2001, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32, 65-107] has proposed to reconstruct auxiliary hypothesis addition, e.g., postulation of Neptune to immunize Newtonian mechanics, with concepts from non-monotonous inference to avoid the retention of false predictions that are among the consequence-set of the deductive model. However, the non-monotonous reconstruction retains the observational premise that is indeed rejected in the deductive model. Hence, his proposal fails to do justice to Lakatos' core-belt model, therefore fails to meet what Schurz (...) coined "Lakatos' challenge". It is argued that Lakatos's distinction between core and belt of a research program is not mapable onto premise-set and consequence-set and that Schurz's understanding of a ceteris paribus clause as a transfinite list of interfering factors is problematic. I propose a simple reading of Lakatos's use of the term ceteris paribus clause and motivate why the term hypothesis addition, despite not being interpretable literally, came to be entrenched. (shrink)

In a paper published in this Journal, Hans Radder argues that a detailed analysis of the degenerating phase of Bohr's programme reveals the basic incorrectness of Lakatos' own reconstruction of this period. Furthermore the corrected version shows the impossibility to account for the development in Lakatosian concepts. In this reply I try to point out that a slight modification of Lakatos' reconstruction is sufficient for reconciling the theory with the historical data. It is not Lakatos's theory itself (...) that causes the problems, but Radder's way of its application. (shrink)

The aim of the paper is resurrecting the “Demarcation Problem”, which was considered dead in a paper written by Larry Laudan in 1983. I will go through the analysis of Imre Lakatos’ thought, which represents the most mature synthesis between the fallibilism of science and the rationality of the demarcation attitude. Lakatos’ philosophical trick is directed to acknowledge the inclinations of the contemporary philosophers, to grasp the best they can offer, and to propose a more suitable philosophy of (...) science. He follows the middle path between dogmatism and skepticism: the favorite position in order to safeguard the phenomena suggesting a rational unity of the science in an “anarchic” historical period. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Philosophy and Literature 27.2 (2003) 363-381 [Access article in PDF] Imre Lakatos and Literary Tradition Suzanne Black ALTHOUGH THE CANON DEBATES have largely subsided, the categories of tradition and canon remain problematic and unhelpfully contentious. Some authors view tradition as weighty and oppressive, while cultural studies scholars criticize the concept itself as elitist and exclusionary. Yet literature, like other creative pursuits, cannot avoid its past; nor should it (...) seek to do so. Progressive ideas have a history and a logical development; to argue otherwise leaves them vulnerable to accusations of faddish trendiness. Artists learn from the work of other artists, and critics rely on older examples to describe and understand what they study. Thus activist critics, writers, and moderate scholars all need some way to react to and to conceive of literary history.E. Dean Kolbas has argued that shared assumptions such as a preoccupation with educational institutions limit the arguments of conservative humanists and canon openers alike. 1 If the perspective of literary critics is indeed narrow, they may benefit from broader and more interdisciplinary studies of tradition. For example, historicist philosophy of science devoted considerable energy to understanding how major accomplishments influence the work of scientists. This scholarship offers several complex accounts of the ways science is shaped by its past, and so can offer literary critics another, more structured, more rational, and even more flexible, view of tradition. In addition, some of its preoccupations, like the emergence of consensus or criteria for the selection of representative examples, are relevant to the canon debates. Finally, because writers and scientists understand the past differently and because their ideas develop in distinct social contexts, literary theory and philosophy of science have potentially complementary strengths and weaknesses. [End Page 363]In this article I first summarize Imre Lakatos's conception of the research program and explain some of its potential benefits for an understanding of literary tradition. Then, to show that the concept of a "literary research program" makes sense, I use the category to examine the ideas of Ricardo Reis, a neo-classical persona created by the Portuguese modernist Fernando Pessoa. Finally, I turn to a discussion of W. H. Auden's "Letter to Lord Byron" to identify some difficulties in applying Lakatos's model to literature. To view Auden as working within a Byronic program directs attention to his interpretation of the older poet, but the poem's formal innovation and its irony suggest some important differences between artistic and scientific approaches to the past, as well as some limitations of Lakatos's analytical framework.During the 1960s and 1970s, partly in response to Thomas Kuhn, but also in reaction against other approaches to their field, several important philosophers of science sought to incorporate the history of science into their work. David J. Hess terms this tendency a historicist "period and style" 2 within philosophy of science. As the Hungarian philosopher Imre Lakatos (echoing Kant) contended, "Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind." 3 Generalizing about how scientists think (or ought to think) while still bearing in mind actual science led some philosophers of science to devise subtle and provocative ways of viewing the past. Kuhn's notion of paradigms as "models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research" 4 is the best known and influenced Stanley Fish and Frank Kermode. Generally, however, literary critics are unaware of philosophers' responses to Kuhn and of their attempts to refine his category of paradigm. Larry Laudan, for example, sought to delineate the role of "research traditions" in the natural sciences. As his terminology suggests, these formulations overlap to some extent with literary understandings of past practice.But how much overlap is there, and is it significant? While Kuhn and Laudan both mention the arts, they disagree about the relevance of their work to the humanities. In 1969, noting that "topics" such as "competing schools," "changing standards of value" and "altered modes of perception" "have long been basic for the art historian," Kuhn argued that The Structure of Scientific Revolutions "makes them central to... (shrink)

In their 1993 article "'Theoretical Mathematics': Toward a Cultural Synthesis of Mathematics and Theoretical Physics" published in the Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society, the eminent mathematical physicists Arthur Jaffe and Frank Quinn proposed a set of prescriptions for the interaction between mathematicians and theoretical physicists that should foster mathematicians' receptivity of ideas from physics by safeguarding mathematical rigour against uncontrolled speculation. The proposal propelled and intensive debate in the Bulletin and lead to a special issue of the journal Synthese. (...) So far, however, philosophers of science have hardly addressed this debate, perhaps because it lacks a systematic framework. In this contribution I portray the various stances taken in the Jaffe-Quinn debate from the perspective of Imre Lakatos philosophy of mathematics that seems most suitable for a debate concerning mathematical growth. After outlining the lessons to be drawn for it from Lakatos's published works, I examine which modifications of Lakatos's account are in place to enable a fruitful assessment of present mathematical physics in which axiomatization plays a key role. (shrink)

This paper shows how late 1960’s student protests influenced the thought of Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend. I argue that student movements shaped their work from this period, specifically Lakatos’s “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” and Feyerabend’s Against Method. Archival evidence shows that their political environments at London and Berkeley inflected their writing on scientific method, entrenching Lakatos’s search for a rationalist account of scientific development, and encouraging Feyerabend’s ‘anarchistic’ theory of knowledge. I document (...) this influence and draw two broader lessons: one lesson about the role of biography in philosophy and the other about the historiography of student protests. (shrink)

This paper discusses the connection between the actual history of mathematics and Lakatos's philosophy of mathematics, in three parts. The first points to studies by Lakatos and others which support his conception of mathematics and its history. In the second I suggest that the apparent poverty of Lakatosian examples may be due to the way in which the history of mathematics is usually written. The third part argues that Lakatos is right to hold philosophy accountable to history, (...) even if Lakatos's own view of mathematics fails that test. (shrink)

This paper shows how late 1960’s student protests influenced the thought of Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend. I argue that student movements shaped their work from this period, specifically Lakatos’s “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” and Feyerabend’s Against Method. Archival evidence shows that their political environments at London and Berkeley inflected their writing on scientific method, entrenching Lakatos’s search for a rationalist account of scientific development, and encouraging Feyerabend’s ‘anarchistic’ theory of knowledge. I document (...) this influence and draw two broader lessons: one lesson about the role of biography in philosophy and the other about the historiography of student protests. (shrink)

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. (shrink)