Talk:Imre Lakatos

Informal Mathematics

I've added the comment about informal mathematics, because I'm sure that Lakatos wasn't claiming that 'formal proofs don't prove'. The Euler characteristic example was capped off by a formal proof.

Charles Matthews 18:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In a couple of limited senses, I think that Lakatos was claiming that 'formal proofs don't prove' - or at least not infallibly. In the first sense, a formal proof may simply misrepresent (or, perhaps better, mistranslate) important aspects of the informal problem - the proof is still formally valid, but fails to refer correctly. In the second sense, it's in principle possible that what counts as a formal proof could change (effectively, a change in the underlying logic) - though I think that, for Lakatos, this was very much expected to be only in principle. --PWilkinson 18:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Research Programs

I have done a magour overhaul of this section because some of it was just incorrect and some was confused. I have tryed to explain the ideas best I can. Hope I have done O.K. My main ref's have been. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge a collection of works edited by Lakatos and including a paper by him (Falsification and the meathodology of research programs) and Brendan Larvour's Lakatos: An Introduction. --JK the unwise 15:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Some parts of this are less clear than the old version, and conventions of NPOV are not adhered to. Needs more work. Banno 20:42, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

My main reason for change was that alot of the old version was inncorect, for example; A research programme (or program) consists of, in Lakatos' terms, a negative heuristic or 'hard core' that is not open to negotiation from the old version, is just plain incorect. The negative heuristic isn't the same thing as the hard core. Also RP's are not defended at all cost by the positive heuristic, a 'protective belt' of statements. They are not defended at all costs as they should not (according to Lakcatos) be defended if the RP is 'degenerating'. All so the postive huersistic isn't the protective belt. So even if it was more clear it was worth changing.

I have tryied to make it as clear as possible but Lakatos' ideas are quite complected (far more so then Poppers). Are there any parcticular sentences that u think are unclear?

How is it POV? Please give example.

Cheers. --JK the unwise 09:31, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Check out http://www.iespell.com/ Banno 21:08, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I've removed some POV comments, run a spelling check and fixed up a few typos. I don't think that this new version is very clear, nor do I like the repetition of issues from the previous text at the start of a paragraph. All up, I think it not as good as the previous version (but then I would...) But I'll leave it as is for others to comment. Banno 21:19, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

I reolise that you created the section first so may be a bit protective about it but it would be nice if you were a bit more grasious about it. You have made no comment on the things I pointed out were incorrect with the previous text, I'd apresiate a little credit for correcting them! Also spelling isn't my strong point but I did spell cheack it (in microsoft word), at any rate the good thing about wikipedia is that other people can 'fix' my spelling mistakes. Still prehaps 'i-spell' would be usefull, except that I use firefox not I.E. (I don't care about bad spelling in talk pages by the way)

Issules of politeness aside. If u have issules with stuff I have writtern please don't just make vage hints towards it, please bring up spesific issules on this talk page. I have read the article again and I'm not sure what stuff is being repeted.

Here's hoping that we can get an article that we both like. Peace. --JK the unwise 11:32, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One concrete thing disagreement is that, you say that in the history of science as described by Kuhn ... individual scientists are seen to defend their doctrines, even when the evidence against them appears to be overwhelming, I added in periods of Normal science, but you claim that (Kuhn claims that) it is not just in periods of Normall science. However in periods of (so called) revolutionary) science Kuhn discribes scientists as willing to accept critism of their theories and abandon them for new theories . Addmitiedly he says some scientists will cling to their theorys prehaps even till they die, but what he thinks makes a revolution and revolution is that these are a minority and the majority is willing to adandon their theories in the face of the evidence against them appear[ing] to be overwhelming. To engorage good faith between us I have not edited this, let us discuss it first.--JK the unwise 11:46, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The only thing stopping me editing en mass is time. Please, edit what I have written to your heart's content. You quite adequately stated the reasons I edited the in periods of Normal science section.t spell out what you have said here, and all will be well. 20:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the original text did blur the distinction between the negative heuristic and the hard core - but I don't think that it is that much clearer in this version. I find the writing unclear, as I mentioned. For instance, the original version gave a paragraph, in order, to an introduction, the conflict between Popper and Kuhn, the problem for Lakatos, a description of l;akato's research programs, and an explanation of how Lakatos thought they solved the problem - a clear progression. the present version appears to me to jump around, without tight topics for each paragraph. For instance, the third paragraph half explains the problem for L., and half explains the solution - niether are done well. The fourth explains auxiliary hypotheses, but before it explains the methodology of research programs; And then int he sixth, we are back to Falsificationism - and so on. There is no "plot", and I think that someone with no prior knowledge would simply find it confusing. Banno 20:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

But apart from that, I am at least grateful that someone is interested in the topic. Keep editing. Banno 20:31, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

structure

1. Regarding 'Normal science' qualification, not sure I get u. Are u saying that what I have said is correct? But that the noraml science qualification should only go in if the explaination of why this is so also goes in? Would this not make it so that there would be to much info' on Kuhn in this page? Should people not go to Kuhn page to read about him?

Sorry - I think you should place what you said above in the talk page into the main article - suitably modified, of course. Banno 11:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

2. While I don't presume the new version is perfect (and have just edited it some more to make it more simple) I don't agree with your comments about structure. Here is how I see it.
Old structure:

• Pgh 1. Note that it was attempt to resovle conflict.
• Pgh 2. Discription of that conflict
• Pgh 3. Re-discription of conflict problem
• Pgh 4. Discription of RP + Example (Newton's 3 laws)
• Pgh 5. The evaluation of RP's
  

(4,5 didn't really adress 1,2,3 clearly in my opinion)

New structure:

• Pgh 1. Note that it was attempt to resovle conflict. (same)
• Pgh 2. Discription of that conflict
• Pgh 3. Lakatos' stance towards the problem
• Pgh 4. How he thinks this can be solved = RPs
• Pgh 5. Explain how RPs solve conflict
• Pgh 6. Explain how RPs sovle conflict (from diff angle)
• Pgh 7. More Detail about RPs (+/- hurestics)
• Pgh 8. Example (Newton's 3 laws)
• Pgh 9. How he thinks we should assess the rationality of RPs
  

Hope you get some time to have a think about this soon. JK the unwise 10:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I have found a Firefox spell cheacker add on thingy, thanks for the tip)

Note that the article explains how RPs solve the conflict before explaining what the theory is? ie, paragraph 5&6 come before paras 7 & 8? That's my point. Banno 11:33, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

It is often easyier to explain what something is through explaining how it solves a problem. This is what happens here. What is now pgh 3. explains how RPs solve problem by explaining what they are.

I disagree. Banno 20:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

U disagree that this is ever true? U disagree that it is true here? Or are U just being difficult to irritate me?--JK the unwise 12:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why have u removed this sentence So, a research programme consists of a 'hard core' and a protective belt of 'auxiliary hypotheses'. Lakatos also believes that it contained 'methodological rules' some that instruct on what paths of research to avoid (he called this the 'negative heuristic') and some that instruct on what paths to pursue (he called this the 'positive heuristic'). He claimed that, the negative heuristics of all scientific research programs generally forbid attacking the hard core in the face of anomalies.? It leaves the article without any explaination of neg and pos hueristics. --JK the unwise 08:49, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove it, I re-phrased and moved it. Banno 20:09, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

the desire to protect the hard core as the negative heuristic -- this is incorrect. The protecting the hardcore is only part of the neg' heuristic. See sentance above that u removed. + no mention of the pos' hueristic.--JK the unwise 12:50, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Negative and positive heuristics are discussed in para 7 of this section, so the sentence can go. I have replaced it with a short discussion of progressive and degenerative research programs. The only problem is that the same stuff is handled later on in the same section! As I read it at the moment what I have written is repeating what is already said rather than anticipating it. Would it be worth bringing them together? Chris 21:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

"Thomas Kuhn was so popular during the 60's that people attended his lectures in adjacent lecture theatres listening to him via a sound system. Ergo, it was as if God was speaking, for they could not see anyone." Is it me, or does that last line not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia?--The Individual 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct, not only is it at odds with encylopedic style, its also out of place in that paragraph and irrelevant to the article as a whole.--Blargly14:38, 25 January 2007

request for help

... from anyone who watches/has contributed to this article. I just made this addition to the article on Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory&diff=prev&oldid=171922842 - I'd appreciate it if people would go over it, make any necessry edits to correct or clarify it or just to improve the style. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ILakatos.jpg

Image:ILakatos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Clarify if possible

I didn't understand the following under the Research Programmes section:

"...though many commentators believe that Popper2 just is Lakatos."

I've not read enough Lakatos to come across Popper1, 2 and 3 yet, but I wonder from the above if it is meant that Lakatos expounded a philosophy, Popper2, and attributed it to the Popper himself, only to be accused of doing what the exponents of Popper1 did. That is to say Popper2 is also a philosophy that exists "only in the minds of critics".

If that is what we want to say it needs to be both clarified and attributed to someone.

I would also risk cutting the remainder of the paragraph which reads,

"The idea that it is often not possible to show decisively which of two theories or research programmes is better at a particular point in time whereas subsequent developments may show that one is 'progressive' while the other is 'degenerative', and therefore less acceptable was a major contribution both to philosophy of science and to history of science. Whether it was Popper's idea or Lakatos' idea, or, most likely, a combination, is of less importance."

For two reasons. The first sentence outlines what has already been explained reasonably well only for the purpose of marking it as a 'major contribution'. I don't disagree that Lakatos contributions to phil. sci. were considerable, but I would prefer to make that self evident by instead enumerating the people he influenced, the controversies he sparked and whatever else it is that makes his contribution 'major'.

And lastly, I read all the way down to "Whether it was Popper's idea or Lakatos [...] is of less importance". Are we suggesting that Research Programmes could reasonably be attributed to Popper rather than Lakatos? The tone of the sentence suggests we are dismissing a controversy. Is that what should be inferred? --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman neoclassical economics case study

Clean-up: removed RedHouse18's comments requiring citations. They were valid comments, but have now been addressed in the article. --winterstein (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the following paragraph because, in it's current form, it detracts from the quality of the article. The following minor flaws should be easy to fix: (a) it presents a defence of Friedman, but opens with a misleading sentence which suggests Snowdon & Vane's 2005 comments were of the time and were critical, (b) it uses a reference (Snowdon, Vane 2005) to summary comments rather than direct citations. A more major flaw is whether Snowden, Vane 2005 is notable & solid enough to be cited alongside the other sources of this section -- primary evidence from Lakatos & Friedman, & the Nobel committee's press release -- without a gloss on the relative strength of sources. --winterstein (talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Lakatos's analysis was part of a wider concern with Friedman's work. Snowdon and Vane, regarding Friedman's work in 1968 on monetary policy, argue that Friedman used his neo-classical monetarist approach to predict an accelerating rate of inflation due to attempts to use expansionary monetary policy in order to attain an unrealistic employment target. His research ultimately led to a break down of the popular belief in economics at the time that there was a long-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation. Robert E. Lucas argued that the Friedman-Phelps model was "as clear cut an experimental distinction as macroeconomics is ever likely to see". Roger Backhouse argued that Friedman and Phelps had predicted novel facts that were corroborated by the events of the 1970s.Mark Blaug argued that Friedman's 1968 paper and its successful prediction of novel facts was itself proof that Friedman's monetarist neo-classical research programme was a progressive research programme. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

After having read Lakatos' 'Science and Pseudoscience' talk transcript, I have had trouble finding anything he says that matches the claim in the Wikipedia article:

"a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories which at least predict some novel fact(s), whether or not they are confirmed.[8] Within the class of scientific theories, progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted."

Instead, Lakatos makes a few points that appear to indicate that he equates pseudoscientific with degenerate:

"But how can one distinguish a scientific or progressive programme from a pseudoscientific or degenerating one?"

"But if Kuhn is right, then there is no explicit demarcation between science and pseudoscience, no distinction between scientific progress and intellectual decay..."

Halfway through the transcript he stops using the term "pseudoscientific" and starts using "degenerate" and then the only criterion he seems to put forward is the prediction of novel and correct facts. Are you sure that Lakatos considered degenerate theories to be a subset of scientific ones? If so, I am not sure how that reference shows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyncanarvon (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, also, I checked out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and their take on things seems to conflict with ours: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/

They write: "In his view, a research program is progressive if the new theories make surprising predictions that are confirmed. In contrast, a degenerating research programme is characterized by theories being fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts. Progress in science is only possible if a research program satisfies the minimum requirement that each new theory that is developed in the program has a larger empirical content than its predecessor. If a research program does not satisfy this requirement, then it is pseudoscientific."

I am thinking they might be correct. If no one objects, I will edit this section later this week to say that he equated degenerate with pseudoscientific. Let me know if you think I am wrong.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyncanarvon (talk • contribs) 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed you are wrong, at least on the textual evidence you cite, where Lakatos does not equate degenerating science with pseudoscience: the latter makes no novel predictions whatever as distinct from refuted novel predictions with degenerate science.

You quote Lakatos "But how can one distinguish a scientific or progressive programme from a pseudoscientific or degenerating one?" as evidence of a conflation of pseudoscience with degenerate science.

But he is clearly asking a question about two different distinctions, namely scientific vs pseudoscientific and progressive science vs degenerate science. The “or” does not denote two identicals, but rather 2 different alternatives in each case.

So I delete the mistaken insertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.13 (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)