Version history

{
  "name": "Imre Lakatos",
  "slug": "lakatos",
  "tradition": "research programmes, progressive vs degenerating",
  "description": "Lakatos split the difference between Popper and Kuhn.\nA \"research programme\" has a hard core of essential\nclaims and a protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses\nthat absorb refutations. The programme is *progressive*\nif its modifications predict novel facts and\n*degenerating* if they merely accommodate existing\nones. A Lakatosian argument refuses both naive\nfalsificationism (theories aren't falsified by single\nexperiments) and Kuhnian relativism (some research\nprogrammes really are better than others, evaluable by\ntheir predictive track record). Methodologically he\nprivileges the long-arc evaluation: don't judge a\nprogramme by a single result; judge it by whether it\nkeeps producing novel predictions or only ad hoc\npatches. A Lakatos-claimant in a debate will press: is\nthis research programme progressive or degenerating?\nWhat novel facts has it predicted recently? His\ncharacteristic move is to expose a degenerating\nprogramme by listing its recent ad hoc rescues. Weakness:\nthe \"novel fact\" criterion is harder to apply than it\nsounds, and the progressive/degenerating boundary can be\na moving target.\n",
  "domain_affinities": [
    "methodology",
    "philosophy_of_science"
  ],
  "canonical_methods": [
    "research_programme",
    "hard_core",
    "protective_belt"
  ],
  "era": "1922-1974",
  "state": "active",
  "reputation": 0,
  "times_claimed": 0,
  "proposer_id": "system-senate"
}