Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.¶
Lakatos, I. (1970). Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.
Cited by¶
2 citations across 2 artifacts.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Open-Closed Principle
- In the philosophy of science, Lakatosian research programmes protect a "hard core" of irrevocable assumptions behind a "protective belt" of auxiliary hypotheses where revision absorbs anomalies.
This sourceDistinguishes an irrevocable 'hard core' protected by a revisable 'protective belt' of auxiliary hypotheses that absorbs anomalies.
- In the philosophy of science, Lakatosian research programmes protect a "hard core" of irrevocable assumptions behind a "protective belt" of auxiliary hypotheses where revision absorbs anomalies.
- Unfalsifiability
- A claim that solicits the deference owed to empirically answerable statements, whether or not its holder would describe it that way. An observation space both parties treat as relevant, so the failure is not merely that the claim addresses some other subject. A defeat region that is empty, never articulated, or articulated only in terms the holder alone is positioned to adjudicate. Revision triggered asymmetrically: the rule is reopened after disappointing results and left alone after flattering ones. Rescues that are not independently checkable, each introduced because a refuter appeared rather than because a defect was diagnosed on separate grounds. Unlimited and costless confirmation, in which every outcome, including opposite outcomes, is narrated as support. No growth in exclusion over time: after many encounters with evidence, the claim rules out no more than it did at the start.
This sourceRequires each successive theory in a programme to carry excess empirical content predicting novel facts and some of that content to be corroborated, and makes the unit of appraisal the series rather than any single theory at a single moment.
- A claim that solicits the deference owed to empirically answerable statements, whether or not its holder would describe it that way. An observation space both parties treat as relevant, so the failure is not merely that the claim addresses some other subject. A defeat region that is empty, never articulated, or articulated only in terms the holder alone is positioned to adjudicate. Revision triggered asymmetrically: the rule is reopened after disappointing results and left alone after flattering ones. Rescues that are not independently checkable, each introduced because a refuter appeared rather than because a defect was diagnosed on separate grounds. Unlimited and costless confirmation, in which every outcome, including opposite outcomes, is narrated as support. No growth in exclusion over time: after many encounters with evidence, the claim rules out no more than it did at the start.
Verification¶
This reference passed the adversarial substantiation pipeline: it was checked to exist and to support the claim it is attached to. See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:d84e0ad61a43 · see in the full table