Odpowiedź moim krytykom

In the book The Structure of Relativistic and Quantum Revolutions in Physics, I presented the anti-Kuhnian and anti-Lakatosian model of scientific revolutions. Following Fleck, I assume that scientists’ ways of perceiving phenomena and thinking about them are conditioned by the thought style acquired in the process of being introduced to the profession. So how could it happen that scientists at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries began to think differently than they had been taught to think? My answer is that both revolutions were made by three generations of theorists. In the first generation (Maxwell; Boltzmann), the acquired knowledge and new experimental results led to conclusions that made the theoretical system inconsistent. Scientists of the second generation (Lorentz, Larmor, Poincaré; Planck, Einstein, Bohr) tried to apply these new conclusions together with old knowledge, and it was found that it was impossible to do it fully. Nevertheless, they obtained a number of new results. In the third generation (Einstein; Heisenberg, Schrödinger, Dirac and others), new conclusions began to be applied as standalone. If one were to use the Lakatosian language, some fragments of the protective belt of the old research program broke off as the cores of the new programs. In this article, I answer the objections that several outstanding philosophers of science have made against my model.

How Well Does Evolution Explain Endogenous Retroviruses?—A Lakatosian Assessment

One of the most sophisticated philosophies of science is the methodology of scientific research programmes (MSRP), developed by Imre Lakatos. According to MSRP, scientists are working within so-called research programmes, consisting of a hard core of fixed convictions and a flexible protective belt of auxiliary hypotheses. Anomalies are accommodated by changes to the protective belt that do not affect the hard core. Under MSRP, research programmes are appraised as ‘progressive’ if they successfully predict novel facts but are judged as ‘degenerative’ if they merely offer ad hoc solutions to anomalies. This paper applies these criteria to the evolutionary research programme as it has performed during half a century of ERV research. It describes the early history of the field and the emergence of the endogenization-amplification theory on the origins of retroviral-like sequences. It then discusses various predictions and postdictions that were generated by the programme, regarding orthologous ERVs in different species, the presence of target site duplications and the divergence of long terminal repeats, and appraises how the programme has dealt with data that did not conform to initial expectations. It is concluded that the evolutionary research programme has been progressive with regard to the issues here examined.

Analysis of research programs: a sociological perspective

The origins and content of the methodology of scientific research programs of I. Lakatos are considered taking into account the problems and tasks of the history of sociology. The reception of the methodology of research programs in sociology can be explained by the relevance of the analytical model of the structure and dynamics of the research program in the analysis of sociological knowledge. Within the framework of sociological knowledge, metatheoretical, theoretical and empirical structural levels are analytically distinguished. Certain structural analogies are observed: between the “hard core” and “negative heuristics” of the research program, on the one hand, and metatheory, on the other; between the “protective belt” and the “positive heuristic” of the research program, on the one hand, and theory, on the other; between the empirical content of the research program, on the one hand, and the empirical basis of sociology, on the other. One can observe a number of analogies in the dynamics of functional connections between the structural components of the research program, on the one hand, and the dynamics of functional connections between metatheorizing, theorizing, and empirical analysis in sociology, on the other.

METODOLOGI PROGRAM RISET IMRE LAKATOS

This research was based on the limitations of the human mind itself in providing and obtaining reasonable explanations, because at that time the desire to know something was obstructed from various myths which existedin that society so that myths were embedded in human mind. The focus of this research was on the methodology of the Imre Lakatos research program. The purpose of this study was to determine the process of research program methodology from Imre Lakatos. The method used in this research was library research, where the researchers looked for and read sources that match the title to be studied, such as books, articles, writings and journals that were relevant.The results of this study in the Imre Lakatos research program methodology included: First, the core (hardcore) functions as a negative heuristic. Second, the protective-belt which consisted of auxiliary hypotheses in the initial conditions. Third, a series of theories (a series theory), theory linkages where the next theory was the result of the auxiliary clauses added from the previous theory.

Analytical Marxism

Marxists believe that an understanding of human society presupposes an understanding of the nature of the production of its material surplus and the nature of control over that surplus. This belief forms part of the “hard core” of the Marxist scientific research program. This hard core is complemented by a set of auxiliary hypotheses and heuristics, constituting what Imre Lakatos has called a scientific research program’s “protective belt.” The protective belt is a set of hypotheses protecting a research program’s hard core. Over the past century and a half, Marxists have populated the protective belt with an economic theory, a theory of history, a theory of exploitation, and a philosophical anthropology, among other things. Analytical Marxism is located in Marxism’s protective belt. It can be seen as a painstaking exercise in intellectual housekeeping. The exercise consists in replacing the tradition’s antiquated, superfluous, or degenerate furnishings with concepts, methods, and auxiliary hypotheses from analytic philosophy and up-to-date social science. The three most influential strands in analytical Marxism are, roughly: its reconstruction of Marx’s theory of history, historical materialism; its philosophical anthropology, including the theory of freedom; and its theory of exploitation, including the theory of class.

Lakatos’s Research Program and the thought of the Islamic Republic

In the volatile history of science, we come across a series of theories and methods, each of which has emerged and has been used at some point and has been replaced later by another method. These multiple methods and theories have each caused science and scientific knowledge to advance one step forward. One of these theories is Imre Lakatos’s research program which, though a theory often considered in the analysis of the trends of the empirical sciences, given the general principles and the dominant spirit of this theory, it can be also used to study other intellectual currents. Lakatos believes that any theory is a research program that is composed of two parts: a hard core and a protective belt. The hard core is the basis and foundation of every thought and theory .To protect the main theory and to protect it against changes, there exist the protective belts that are somehow a supplement to the core of the theory .According to Lakatos, the progressive or retrogressive nature of a research program depends on the ability and acceptability of the auxiliary hypotheses which serve to protect the hard core. Thus, a research program can be progressive and dynamic if it causes new theories which bring about new predictions by modifying the protective belt. This article has considered the notion of the Islamic Republic of Iran as a research program. In this regard, this study is an attempt to determine the functions of ‘expediency’ in the Islamic Republic using an impression of the concept of ‘expediency’ which is similar to the protective belt by considering Islam as a hard core and as a resistant framework. This article is also an attempt to emphasize the point that, in the Islamic Republic, the concept of ‘expediency’ has the same function which is noted as the protective belt in Lakatos’s view. Therefore, using the notion of ‘interest’ by the advocates of the hard core is an attempt made to prevent the rejection of the hard core and pave the way for the development and change in Islam as an efficient religion.