What Is This Thing Called Science? / Alan Chalmers
Chapter 9: Theories as structures: Research programs
-
Commonalities Kuhn and Popper:
o
Reject positivism and
inductivism
o
Priority to theory over
observation
-
Lakatos set out to modify
falsificationism to rid it of its difficulties and does so by drawing on some
of Kuhn’s ideas.
-
Fundamental principles =
hard core of a research program à
basis from which the program is to develop, general hypotheses
-
Any inadequacy in the match
between an articulated program and observation is to be attributed to the
supplementary assumptions rather than the hard core
-
Protective belt = sum of
additional hypotheses supplementing the hard core à its role is to protect the
hard core from falsification
-
Assumptions in the
protective belt are to be modified in an attempt to improve the research
program (the match of its predictions and the actual results of observation and
experiment)
-
Negative heuristic = what
the scientist should not do
-
Positive heuristic = what
the scientist should do, suggestions on how to sophisticate the protective belt
-
Early work in a research
program takes place in spite of apparent falsifications. In this early stage
confirmations rather than falsifications are of paramount significance
-
Indication of the merit of
a program > extent to which it leads to novel predictions that are confirmed
-
Progressive research
program = retains its coherence and at least intermittently leads to novel
predictions that are confirmed
-
Degenerating program =
loses its coherence and/or fails to lead to confirmed new predictions
-
Scientific revolution for
Lakatos: the replacement of a degenerating program by a progressive one
Methodology within a program and the comparison of programs
-
No ad hoc modifications
-
Modifications or additions
to the protective belt must be independently testable and open up opportunity
for new tests
-
Impossible to do research
that departs from the hard core
-
Novel predictions: one
program is superior to another insofar as it is a more successful predictor of
novel phenomena
-
Support Quine/Durkheim
thesis
-
Not irrational to remain
working on a degenerating program if there are possible ways to bring it to
life again
-
Appraisal of research
programs can only be done with historical hindsight
Problems with Lakatos’s methodology
-
Hard core of a program is
rendered unfalsifiable by the methodological decisions of its protagonists à lack of evidence of those
rational decisions and yet they are the locus of distinction between his
position and that of Kuhn
-
Methodology can only make
judgments whether a program is scientific or not with the benefit of historical
hindsight àno
position to diagnose a contemporary program
-
Support with history of
science but only that of physics, assumed that other fields share the
characteristics of physics à
problematic because especially in the social sciences, knowledge produced
itself is a component of the system that is studied, so a change in theory can
bring about a change in the system
additional summaries in philosophy of science
Some books about philosophy of science to consider:
