The Uncertain Frontier between Scientific Theories and Metaphysical Research Programmes

2016 ◽  
pp. 31-41
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Research Programmes

scholarly journals Pemikiran Imre Lakatos (1922-1974) tentang Metodologi Program Riset dan Signifikansinya dalam Kajian Keislaman

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 42
Author(s):  
Ahmad Amir Aziz
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Hard Core ◽  
The Other ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Islamic Studies ◽  
Research Programmes ◽  
The One ◽  
Protective Belt ◽  
Do So

Apart from Kuhn and Popper, Lakatos has become an important figure in the<br />field of Philosophy of Science for his scientific theories, which he calls research<br />programmes. For Lakatos, Popper’s theoretical falsification can be immensely dangerous<br />when applied to the already established theories. On the other hand, in contrast to Kuhn<br />who assumed that a paradigm is by its nature immeasurable, Lakatos maintains that the<br />competing scientific discoveries may in fact be compared between one another. To him,<br />the main issues with regard to the logic of discovery cannot be dealt with satisfactorily<br />unless we do so within the framework of research programmes. The practical<br />implementation of this would be that the hard core of this framework cannot be subjected<br />to modification -let alone- rejection. This hard core must in other words be protected<br />from what he terms falsification. Lakatos also maintains that what can be said as scientific<br />is a series of theory, and not a single theory. This model of research programmes can in<br />fact be used in Islamic Studies in order to develop new theoretical principles that may<br />play a role of convincing protective-belt on the one hand, and to find new premises<br />whose discoveries can be used universally on the other

Review of The structure of scientific theories. 2nd ed.

1978 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 473-473
Author(s):  
DAVID L. KRANTZ
Keyword(s):  
Scientific Theories

Science and Dialectics in the Philosophies of Deleuze, Bachelard and DeLanda

Paragraph ◽  
2006 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Williams
Keyword(s):  
Gilles Deleuze ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Gaston Bachelard ◽  
Contemporary Science

This article charts differences between Gilles Deleuze's and Gaston Bachelard's philosophies of science in order to reflect on different readings of the role of science in Deleuze's philosophy, in particular in relation to Manuel DeLanda's interpretation of Deleuze's work. The questions considered are: Why do Gilles Deleuze and Gaston Bachelard develop radically different philosophical dialectics in relation to science? What is the significance of this difference for current approaches to Deleuze and science, most notably as developed by Manuel DeLanda? It is argued that, despite its great explanatory power, DeLanda's association of Deleuze with a particular set of contemporary scientific theories does not allow for the ontological openness and for the metaphysical sources of Deleuze's work. The argument turns on whether terms such as ‘intensity’ can be given predominantly scientific definitions or whether metaphysical definitions are more consistent with a sceptical relation of philosophy to contemporary science.

Laws of Nature

2018 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Philosophy Of Science ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
Current Debate ◽  
Scientific Theories ◽  
Law Of Nature ◽  
First Time ◽  
The Universe

The concept of a law of nature, while familiar, is deeply puzzling. Theorists such as Descartes think a divine being governs the universe according to the laws which follow from that being’s own nature. Newton detaches the concept from theology and is agnostic about the ontology underlying the laws of nature. Some later philosophers treat laws as summaries of events or tools for understanding and explanation, or identify the laws with principles and equations fundamental to scientific theories. In the first part of this volume, essays from leading historians of philosophy identify central questions: are laws independent of the things they govern, or do they emanate from the powers of bodies? Are the laws responsible for the patterns we see in nature, or should they be collapsed into those patterns? In the second part, contributors at the forefront of current debate evaluate the role of laws in contemporary Best System, perspectival, Kantian, and powers- or mechanisms-based approaches. These essays take up pressing questions about whether the laws of nature can be consistent with contingency, whether laws are based on the invariants of scientific theories, and how to deal with exceptions to laws. These twelve essays, published here for the first time, will be required reading for anyone interested in metaphysics, philosophy of science, and the histories of these disciplines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document