1/9
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced |
---|
No study sessions yet.
What is Lakatos’s criticism on falsificationsim?
no clear guidance concerning which part of a theoretical maze was to be blamed for an apparent falsification
→ distinguishing the hard core (need to be augmented by supplementary and underlying assumptions, named the protective belt) of a research from the less fundamental components. These components need to be testable.
What is a heuristic?
Heuristic is a set of rules or hints to aid discovery or intervention.
negative: what the scientist is advised not to do
positive: what the scientist is advised to do
What are indications of the merit of a research program?
The main indication of the merit of a research program is the extent to which it leads to novel predictions that are confirmed. Next to that, the research program should offer a program of research.
progressive: retaining coherence
degenerating: losing coherence
Which moves are rules out by Lakatos methodology?
ones that are
ad hoc
involve a departure form the hard core
What is progress?
the replacement of a degenerating program with a progressive one, with the latter being an improvement on the former in the sense that it has been shown to be a more efficient predictor of novel phenomena (instead of the judgement of the scientific community as Kuhn says)
What are implications of Lakatos research programmes?
Lakatos doesn't advise when to give up on a research program or when another program is preferred to its rival. Only in the long term Lakatos’s methodology can be used to meaningfully compare research programs. He made the distinction between appraisal (which can be done in the future) and advice (which was not possible according to him)
What is criticism on Lakatos’s methodology?
Is there a ‘hard core’?
Are the decisions to change programs rational?
He gave no rules for elimination of whole research programs (because it is rational to stick to a degenerating program in the hope that it will make a comeback)
Focussing only on physical sciences which might not align with other sciences
There are changing scientific standards
What does Feyerabend argue?
Feyerabend concluded that the high status attributed to science in our society and the superiority it is presumed to have are not justified. He supports the idea that the freedom of scientists should increase by removing them from methodological constraints and leaving individuals the freedom to choose between science and other forms of knowledge. He argued that scientists should follow their subjective wishes (anything goes)
What is incommensurability?
Feyerabend used this term to explain that theories and paradigms were not comparable because of theory-laden facts.
What is criticism on Feyerabend?
the negative view
People are born into a society that pre-exists them and possesses characteristics they do not choose and cannot be in a position to choose.
How realistic is the idea of a world in which all individuals are free to follow their inclinations?