Talk:Imre Lakatos

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

	This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

	Philosophy Portal This article is within the scope of the Philosophy WikiProject, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy and the history of ideas. Please read the instructions and standards for writing and maintaining philosophy articles. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents 1 Informal Mathematics 2 Research Programs 2.1 structure 3 Is this really necessary?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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