Research programme: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|philosophy|}}[[Imre Lakatos]]’ concept of the research programme is a development from [[Thomas Kuhn]]’s concept of the [[paradigm]] | {{a|philosophy|}}[[Imre Lakatos]]’ concept of the research programme is a development from [[Thomas Kuhn]]’s concept of the [[paradigm]]. | ||
A research programme consists of a “hard core” of fundamental assumptions a set of basic, foundational assumptions that are considered irrefutable within the programme — and a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses that can be modified, adjusted, or replaced to defend the hard core against anomalies or contradictory evidence. | A research programme consists of a “hard core” of fundamental assumptions a set of basic, foundational assumptions that are considered irrefutable within the programme — and a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses that can be modified, adjusted, or replaced to defend the hard core against anomalies or contradictory evidence. | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||
{{gb|[[Thomas Kuhn]]<li>[[Paradigm]]<li>[[Transgressing hermeneutical boundaries]]<li>Philosophy of science]]}} | {{gb|[[Thomas Kuhn]]<li>[[Paradigm]]<li>[[Transgressing hermeneutical boundaries]]<li>[[Philosophy of science]]}} | ||
Latest revision as of 15:56, 13 October 2024
|
Philosophy
|
Imre Lakatos’ concept of the research programme is a development from Thomas Kuhn’s concept of the paradigm.
A research programme consists of a “hard core” of fundamental assumptions a set of basic, foundational assumptions that are considered irrefutable within the programme — and a “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses that can be modified, adjusted, or replaced to defend the hard core against anomalies or contradictory evidence.
Research programmes can be evaluated based on whether they are still “progressive” — making new predictions and explaining new phenomena — or “degenerating” — in defensive mode, preoccupied with explaining away anomalies.
Lakatos emphasises the continuity of scientific progress, with gradual modifications to the protective belt. Kuhn’s “paradigm shifts” involve more dramatic, revolutionary changes. Multiple research programmes can coexist and compete in Lakatos’ view, whereas paradigms are more monolithic and tend to dominate a field until overthrown. Lakatos tried to preserve a rational basis for theory choice, while Kuhn’s model has been interpreted as more relativistic, emphasising sociological factors in scientific change.
In essence, Lakatos’ research programme offers a more nuanced, gradual model of scientific change that attempts to reconcile rational progress with the historical development of science, in contrast to Kuhn’s more revolutionary and sociologically-oriented concept of paradigm shifts.