Lecture 4 Lakatos - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 11
About This Presentation
Title:

Lecture 4 Lakatos

Description:

Born Imre Lipsitz in Debrecen (Hungary), 1922. During the occupation joined a ... had problems and gave wrong predictions about the star parallax, Galileo did ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:827
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 12
Provided by: Sesa3
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Lecture 4 Lakatos


1
Lecture 4Lakatos
2
Some biographical facts
  • Born Imre Lipsitz in Debrecen (Hungary), 1922.
  • During the occupation joined a Marxist resistance
    group.
  • 1945 adopted the name Lakatos (locksmith).
  • After the war, finished his studies of science
    and philosophy.
  • 1947 became a secretary in the Ministry of
    Education but was arrested in 1950 and sentenced
    to 4 years.
  • Emigrated after the Hungarian revolution (1956).
  • 1969 became Professor of Logic at the London
    School of Economics.
  • Main works
  • Proofs and Refutations, 1976
  • Philosophical Papers (2 vols), 1978
  • Died in 1974.

3
Lakatoss criticism of Popper (1)
  • Popper said that good science is when you specify
    in advance under what conditions you would be
    ready to abandon your theory.
  • He was aware that no observational prediction can
    be derived from a given theory alone, but only
    together with some auxiliary hypotheses. (For
    example, All metals expanded when heated
    implies This thing will expand when heated only
    if we also assume This thing is made of metal.)
  • But Popper assumed that at least in some
    situations the truth of auxiliary hypotheses is
    taken for granted, and that it is a sign of bad
    science if the false prediction is blamed on them.

4
Lakatoss criticism of Popper (2)
  • Lakatos disagreed. He said that real scientists
    never specify conditions under which they would
    reject a given theory.
  • For example, when Newtons theory had problems
    and gave wrong predictions about the motions of
    planets, they did not reject it (what Popper
    would advise) but simply blamed an auxiliary
    hypothesis (about the number of planets).
  • Again, when the Copernican theory had problems
    and gave wrong predictions about the star
    parallax, Galileo did not reject it (what Popper
    would advise) but simply blamed an auxiliary
    hypothesis (about the distance of stars).
  • Sometimes, if an observation refutes a theory,
    it can even be doubted whether we really observed
    that thing.

5
(No Transcript)
6
All theories are born refuted!
  • Lakatos says that all scientific theories (even
    in their happiest moments) are contradicted by
    some observations. All theories are falsified!
  • Obviously, then, Poppers approach is wrong. He
    said that good scientific theories are those that
    are falsifiable and corroborated, i.e. (the
    theories that passed all the tests, and were not
    falsified).
  • If all theories are falsified, how can we
    distinguish between good science and bad science?
  • Lakatos said that for an answer we shouldnt look
    at individual scientific theories but at larger
    units research programs.

7
Research programs
  • Research programs consist of two parts the hard
    core and protective belt.
  • The hard core is the basic theory T, which plays
    a central role in a given scientific orientation
    and which scientists cannot give up so easily.
  • The protective belt consists of a number of
    auxiliary hypotheses (AH), from which, together
    with T, observational predictions can be derived
    (T AH) ? O
  • Now if scientists happen to observe O, this
    means (logically) that the conjunction (T AH)
    is false. But scientists will usually blame AH,
    and not T!
  • Popper would say This avoiding of falsification
    is pseudoscientific! But Lakatos says this
    behavior is rational.

8
Hard core is unfalsifiable
Protective belt
Hard core
9
Newtons theory hard core and protective belt
Protective beltPlanet positions, optics,
telescope reliability
Hard coreLaws of motion, and gravity
10
Progress and degeneration
  • If deflecting the arrow of modus tollens away
    from the hard core (and toward hypotheses in the
    protective belt) is what all scientists are
    doing, how can we distinguish good science from
    bad science?
  • Lakatoss answer we have to look at how research
    programs develop over time.
  • A research program is theoretically progressive
    if it constantly predicts new facts, and it is
    empirically progressive if these predictions turn
    out to be true.
  • On the other hand, a research program is
    degenerating if it can accommodate newly
    discovered facts only after the event (if it lags
    behind empirical discoveries).
  • So, anticipation is the key, not falsification.

11
What is rational behavior in science?
  • Lakatos says that no theory should be abandoned
    if there is no better theory.
  • But he also admits that sometimes a research
    program that was degenerating can make a turn and
    become progressive.
  • His evaluations are about the past record, and
    cannot be used as an advice about what scientists
    should do. (Like Popper, Lakatos also rejects
    inductive inference.)
  • If a scientist clings to a degenerating program,
    hoping that it will stage comeback and empirical
    success later, Lakatos has no way to condemn this
    behavior as bad science.
  • Some philosophers wondered whether his approach
    is useful at all.
  • Paul Feyerabend took Lakatoss philosophy of
    science as a methodological anarchism with a fig
    leaf.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com