The Philosophy of Science Imre Lakatos entitled "Science as Successful Prediction: Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Program."

2. SCIENCE AS
SUCCESSFUL
PREDICTION:
“Falsification and the
Methodology of
Scientific Research
Program

3. PROFILE
 (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974)
 born Imre (Avrum) Lipsitz to a Jewish family
in Debrecen, Hungary
 was a philosopher of mathematics and science
 received a degree in mathematics, physics,
and philosophy from the University of Debrecen in
1944
 He became an active communist during the Second
World War
 He changed his last name once again
to Lakatos (Locksmith) in honor of Géza Lakatos

4.  After the Soviet Union invaded Hungary in November
1956, Lakatos fled to Vienna, and later reached
England. He received a doctorate in philosophy in 1961
from the University of Cambridge. The book Proofs
and Refutations: The Logic of Mathematical
Discovery, published after his death, is based on this
work.
 Lakatos never obtained British Citizenship, in effect
remaining stateless.

5. Science:
Reason or
Religion?

6. For Centuries, Knowledge
meant Proven Knowledge.

8. Popper
- Falsifiability Method
- virtue lies not in caution in
avoiding errors, but in ruthlessness
in eliminating them (Freudan and
Marxist Errors)
- Belief may be a regrettably
unavoidable biological weakness to
be kept under the control of
criticism.
- Commitment is for
Popper, an outright crime.

9. Kuhn Popper
 Revolution is
exceptional, extra- •Revolution is
scientific permanence
 Criticism is, in normal
times, anathema. •Criticism is the heart
 Transition from of the scientific
Criticism to
Commitment marks the enterprise
point where progress •“Logic of Discovery”
and normal science
begins.
 New Theories only
emerge where ``crisis``
begins
 ``Psychology of
Discovery``
 Truth lies on power
 Religious Change

10. Fallabilism vs.
Falsificationism
Sophisticated versus Naive
Methodological Falsificationism.
Progressive and Degenerating
Problemshifts

11. Sophisticated versus
Naive
Methodological
Falsificationism.
Differs from its rules of
acceptance
(demarcation
criterion) and its
rules of falsification
or elimination

12. Naive
Sophisticated
Falsificationist Falsificationist
 Any theory which can be • A theory is
interpreted as "acceptable" or
experimentally
falsifiable, is "acceptable"
"scientific" only if it has
or "scientific." corroborated excess
empirical content over
its predecessor (or
rival), that is, only if it
leads to the discovery
of novel facts.

13. • This condition can be
analyzed into two
clauses: that the new
theory has excess
empirical content
("acceptability"1) and
that some of this excess
empirical content is
verified
("acceptability"2). The
first clause can be
checked instantly by a
priori logical analysis;
the second can be
checked only
empirically and this
may take an indefinite
time.

14.  A theory • regards a scientific
is falsified by a theory T as
"(fortified) falsified if and only
observational" if another
statement which theory T' has been
conflicts with it (or
proposed with the
rather, which he
decides to
following
interpret as characteristics:
conflicting with
it).

15. (1) T' has excess empirical content over T:
that is, it predicts novel facts, that is, facts
improbable in the light of, or even
forbidden, by T,
(2) T' explains the previous success
of T, that is, all the unrefuted content
of T is contained (within the limits of
observational error) in the content of T';
and
(3) some of the excess content of T' is
corroborated.

16. Excess Empirical Content
New
PROGRESSIVE (or constitutes a
Fact!!
theoretically progressive problemshift
EMPIRICALLYPROGRESSIVE (or constitutes an
empirically progressive problemshift

17. PROBLEMSHIFT
 Progressive if both empirically and theoretically
progressive
 Accept if they are at least theoretically progressive
 “FALSIFIED”
 “Degenerating” if it is not.
 “Reject” if not and termed as “Pseudoscience.”
 Progress is measured by the degree to which a
problemshift is progressive, by the degree to which
the series of theories leads us to the discovery of
novel facts. We regard a theory in the series
"falsified" when it is superseded by a theory with
higher corroborated content.

18. A given fact is
explained
scientifically only if a
new fact s also
explained with it.

19. Sophisticated
Falsificationism Only a series of
theories can be said
to be scientific or
unscientific: to apply
Theories
them the term
"scientific" to
Theories one single theory is a
category mistake.
Theories

20. Revised Methodological
Falsificationism Features:
 it denies that "in the case of a scientific theory, our
decision depends upon the result of experiments.
 It denies that "what ultimately decides the fate of a
theory is the result of the test, i.e., an agreement
about basic statements.
 Contrary to naive falsificationism, no
experiment, experimental
report, observation statement or well-corroborated
low-level falsifying hypothesis alone can lead to
falsification. There is no falsification before the
emergence of a better theory.

21.  Falsification can thus be said to have a "historical
character.”
 Some of the theories which bring about
falsification are frequently proposed after the
"counterevidence."

22. Thus the crucial
element in
falsificationism is
whether the new
theory offers any
novel, excess
information
compared with its
predecessor and
whether some of this
excess information is
corroborated.

23. Confirming

24. Refutation
Naive
Falsificationists

25. Methodological
Fasificationist
The rather rare
excess information
which are the
crucial ones
receives the
attention.

26. Falsification in the Sense of naive
falsificationism
 Not sufficient condition for eliminating a specific
theory
 Falsification is not necessary for Sophisticated
Falsification: a progressive problemshift does not have
to be interspersed with ‘refutations.’

27. Sophisticated Falisificationism
“Proliferation of theories” is
important
Stresses that the urgency of
replacing any hypothesis by a
better one.

28. THE POPPERIAN
VERSUS THE KUHNIAN
RESEARCH PROGRAM

29. KUHN
 In Kuhn’s view there can be
no logic, but only
psychology of discovery.
 Scientific revolution is
irrational, matter of mob
psychology.