• Log In

The Partially Examined Life Philosophy Podcast

A Philosophy Podcast and Philosophy Blog

Subscribe on Android Spotify Google Podcasts audible patreon
  • Home
  • Podcast
    • PEL Network Episodes
    • Publicly Available PEL Episodes
    • Paywalled and Ad-Free Episodes
    • PEL Episodes by Topic
    • Nightcap
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Pretty Much Pop
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • (sub)Text
    • Phi Fic Podcast
    • Combat & Classics
    • Constellary Tales
  • Blog
  • About
    • PEL FAQ
    • Meet PEL
    • About Pretty Much Pop
    • Philosophy vs. Improv
    • Nakedly Examined Music
    • Meet Phi Fic
    • Listener Feedback
    • Links
  • Join
    • Become a Citizen
    • Join Our Mailing List
    • Log In
  • Donate
  • Store
    • Episodes
    • Swag
    • Everything Else
    • Cart
    • Checkout
    • My Account
  • Contact
  • Mailing List

Ep. 280: Imre Lakatos on Scientific Progress (Part One)

October 24, 2021 by Mark Linsenmayer Leave a Comment

https://podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/traffic.libsyn.com/secure/partiallyexaminedlife/PEL_ep_280pt1_10-4-21.mp3

Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 52:18 — 47.9MB)

Subscribe to get Part 2 of this episode. Listen to a preview. Hear this part ad-free.

On "Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes" (1970), featuring Mark, Wes, Dylan, and Seth. In what way is scientific progress rational?

To understand the state of the debate by Lakatos' time, let's run quickly through some history of the philosophy of science:

Early scientists like Francis Bacon saw science as providing certainty in the progressive accumulation of truths. In the 1930s, Karl Popper argued that while experiments cannot prove a scientific theory to be true, they can and do falsify theories, again with certainty: Science proceeds through a series of creative conjectures that are then refuted by experiments, leading scientists to further conjectures that are more accurate, i.e. not refuted by the experiments undertaken to that point. Thomas Kuhn argued in the 1960s that this was nonsense: When a supposedly falsifying experiment is performed against a theory, the theory is not typically given up; adherents of the theory instead just ignore the experimental results as an anomaly. Science on Kuhn's view is a series of paradigms (world-views that include ways of doing science including for determining what counts as admissible results), and why one paradigm goes out of fashion to be replaced by another is a matter for sociological study with no ultimate rationality behind it.

Lakatos' view was somewhere between Popper's and Kuhn's: He accepted Kuhn's charge that scientists have not historically given up their theories as soon as a refuting experiment comes along, but he nonetheless claimed like Popper than scientific progress is rational, and so we can study it by studying the logic of justification and not just the sociology of intellectual fashion. Instead of talking about paradigms, Lakatos uses the term "research program." Each scientific research program has a firm set of core principles that are resistant to change by experiment, but also includes numerous auxiliary principles that can be changed. An extensively considered example in the text is Newtonian mechanics, which even when it was developed could not explain the motion of the moon. When some particular orbit seemed to defy Newton's laws, people did not give up those laws, but would instead posit that there must be some other body out there distorting that planet's motion.

The rationality of a scientific research program is determined by how "progressive" it is, which according to Lakatos is its ability to continually make new and unexpected predictions. If a program makes a false prediction, well, that's not enough reason to just give it up, but enough false predictions necessitating ad hoc modifications of auxiliary principles mean that the program is "regressive." A scientist working within that program could still rationally keep working on it to try to make it more progressive, but at least in historical hindsight, we can tell a rational story about how Newtonian mechanics explained the world better than Aristotelianism, and how Einstein improved on Newton, etc.

Buy the book that contains this essay (and we also read the intro from 1973 from this collection of papers) or try this online version.

Audio editing by Tyler Hislop.

Facebooktwitterredditpinterestlinkedinmailby feather

Filed Under: Podcast Episodes Tagged With: Imre Lakatos, Karl Popper, philosophy of science, philosophy podcast

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

PEL Live Show 2023

Brothers K Live Show

Citizenship has its Benefits

Become a PEL Citizen
Become a PEL Citizen, and get access to all paywalled episodes, early and ad-free, including exclusive Part 2's for episodes starting September 2020; our after-show Nightcap, where the guys respond to listener email and chat more causally; a community of fellow learners, and more.

Rate and Review

Nightcap

Listen to Nightcap
On Nightcap, listen to the guys respond to listener email and chat more casually about their lives, the making of the show, current events and politics, and anything else that happens to come up.

Subscribe to Email Updates

Select list(s):

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

Support PEL

Buy stuff through Amazon and send a few shekels our way at no extra cost to you.

Tweets by PartiallyExLife

Recent Comments

  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 302: Erasmus Praises Foolishness (Part Two)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)
  • Mark Linsenmayer on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • MartinK on Ep. 201: Marcus Aurelius’s Stoicism with Ryan Holiday (Citizen Edition)
  • Wayne Barr on Ep. 308: Moore’s Proof of Mind-Independent Reality (Part Two for Supporters)

About The Partially Examined Life

The Partially Examined Life is a philosophy podcast by some guys who were at one point set on doing philosophy for a living but then thought better of it. Each episode, we pick a text and chat about it with some balance between insight and flippancy. You don’t have to know any philosophy, or even to have read the text we’re talking about to (mostly) follow and (hopefully) enjoy the discussion

Become a PEL Citizen!

As a PEL Citizen, you’ll have access to a private social community of philosophers, thinkers, and other partial examiners where you can join or initiate discussion groups dedicated to particular readings, participate in lively forums, arrange online meet-ups for impromptu seminars, and more. PEL Citizens also have free access to podcast transcripts, guided readings, episode guides, PEL music, and other citizen-exclusive material. Click here to join.

Blog Post Categories

  • (sub)Text
  • Aftershow
  • Announcements
  • Audiobook
  • Book Excerpts
  • Citizen Content
  • Citizen Document
  • Citizen News
  • Close Reading
  • Combat and Classics
  • Constellary Tales
  • Exclude from Newsletter
  • Featured Ad-Free
  • Featured Article
  • General Announcements
  • Interview
  • Letter to the Editor
  • Misc. Philosophical Musings
  • Nakedly Examined Music Podcast
  • Nakedly Self-Examined Music
  • NEM Bonus
  • Not School Recording
  • Not School Report
  • Other (i.e. Lesser) Podcasts
  • PEL Music
  • PEL Nightcap
  • PEL's Notes
  • Personal Philosophies
  • Phi Fic Podcast
  • Philosophy vs. Improv
  • Podcast Episode (Citizen)
  • Podcast Episodes
  • Pretty Much Pop
  • Reviewage
  • Song Self-Exam
  • Supporter Exclusive
  • Things to Watch
  • Vintage Episode (Citizen)
  • Web Detritus

Follow:

Twitter | Facebook | Google+ | Apple Podcasts

Copyright © 2009 - 2023 · The Partially Examined Life, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy · Terms of Use · Copyright Policy

Copyright © 2023 · Magazine Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in