Post-Kuhnian Philosophy of Science: Imre Lakatos (1 of 3)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2024
- Imre Lakatos' "The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes" was one of the first major replies to Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." In this video I walk through the similarities and differences between Lakatos' and Kuhn's thinking on the nature of science.
I was waiting for this for 3 years, thanks a lot : ))
I'll have a few more lectures in the series, updated about once a week for the next few weeks.
Please do this!
Thanks, professor. Im studying this field, and I found your explanations straightforward and uncomplicated. Thanks for sharing this content. 🙌😁
Thank you for saying so. It's nice to know my work is appreciated.
Was never tempted to unsubscribe and the wait was well worth it.
I don't know at which institute the presenter teaches, but I'm much impressed. I particularly like (ca. 14 min) the statement that a high degree of failure might mean it has been subject to a lot of scrutiny. When I review a draft and make lots of comments to consider, it usually means I found plenty of good stuff worth commenting on.
Thanks. I teach at Cal State Sacramento.
Holy shit you've returned after YEARS. Nice! I'll enjoy watching this later!
Yaay, love your videos, man! The best quality of content on youtube.
glad to see you back on TH-cam, SR!
Why, just yesterday I was re-watching this series. Good to see a continuation!
Stay tuned: I'll have new episodes in the coming weeks.
Garrett, wasn't it? Welcome back, and I'm excited about mainlining 5 of your videos in a row!
Without you I would never have done well in philosophy of science at university!
Thanks 4 this video! This aspect, or something quite similar was pointed out already before Kuhn by Polányi Mihály (Michael ) in his "Personal Knowledge" (in hungarian: "Személyes tudás": The sientist's personal or 'tacit' knowledge is of a greater importance in the development of science than it had ever been talked about. Of course, Thomas Kuhn found far more popularity with the somewhat simpler idea that every scientist group or person follows or not follows - or struggling between following or not - one leader paradigme at the time. They (Kuhn & Polányi) had quite serious debates on that, that could be of interest 4 anyone who's into science philosophy. Have Fun Y'All :)
Always a delight. Thank you for the education!
When I studied history and philosophy of science in the mid-to-late 90s, Structure of Scientific Revolution had been around 30+ years. We did a whole seminar on it and what followed. What struck me most strongly was hearing from scientists who were working around 10-15 years after it's publication. It seems you had tons of people suddenly doing philosophy rather than their science. Apparently there was a reduction in productivity for a while, and plenty of bad philosophy, usually over beer and pizza.
In the end, they returned to what they were doing, but with a more informed understanding of the broader system they participated in. It strikes me that this might be a good time to examine that period in more detail. I was, and am still, lucky to observe the impact of plate tectonics on a wide variety of disciplines. Perhaps something similar will happen with dark energy and dark matter?
Great videos. Thank you! Anyway you can post the PPTs? Thank you either way!
pretty interesting stuff, it's really cool to dig into this aspects of philosophy
Thanks. This is great. I love philosophy of science.
Just discovered your channel. Very nice. Is there a video where you explain your channel name or, if not, would you explain it? How does Sisyphus get redeemed? Or is it really philosophy you are redeeming (not that I think it needed redemption, except for philosophers who reduced discussion of aesthetics to symbolic logic)?
No video explaining it, but there's not much to explain. I was reading Camus' "The Myth of Sisyphus" when I started my channel. I liked the idea of a secular understanding of redemption, not from sin, but from the absurdity of life.
I like this presentation very much. A constructive suggestion for any future material: When talking about the "hard core" of the scientific project, it might help to name some examples. I assume here we're talking about principles of modeling, logical inference, and so on. But I would assume we're also NOT talking about things that are pretty fundamental but seem like they should still be subject to confirmation and disconfirmation like Coulomb's law.
Yes, new SR videos!
Thank you so much for posting these lectures Professor!
I've learnt a lot and have taken on board some of your recommended readings.
How much more in depth would you say one of your philosophy classes at university would go?
Would the course content cover more ground as opposed to building on more complexity?
I consider myself self-taught in the study of philosophy through lectures like this and of course reading the original philosophical texts, and I don't hold the belief (which I assume you would too) that you need a piece of paper to tell you that you are sufficiently educated in philosophy.
I would be very interested to hear your thoughts on that.
Thank you,
Matthew
The big difference between these videos and class is discussion. I use these videos in my philosophy of science class, so we can spend in class time talking about the material. Then, of course, there are writing assignments.
And yeah, you don't need a degree to understand philosophy or be a philosopher. But time in a community of thinkers really helps, and school is the most reliable such community I know of.
Thanks for your reply.
I am also interested in your username. Is Sisyphus set free? Is that in reference to Camus? Or in another sense? I actually think of Sisyphus often, it's quite strange because I think the human condition can be like that sometimes. Pushing a massive boulder up a hill and never really knowing if there is any progress.
That's true about the community of thinkers, it's something I don't think I can ever truly experience, but my wallet is not so reliable to justify the spending at this point -- plus I already have accumulated student fees and debt with another degree in a totally non-related area in finance. I could have also tried to study philosophy in high school too, although, I don't believe I would have covered the same breadth or detail (but I could be wrong).
I wish I did pick up electives in philosophy at university. Unfortunately, I was in my third year when I enrolled in a senior elective subject on metaphysics. I hadn't built at that point any grounding in logic, epistemology, the philosophy of science, etc. and was lost immediately. It was a bit too technical at that stage and I withdrew from the subject (to be honest I don't know why I could choose that subject but somehow I met the prerequisites because I had enough credit points). I did, however, touch on social philosophy in a few politics and sociology electives but this is quite a quite different area compared to others in philosophy.
It's hard to argue against philosophy being one of the most important tools in life, even if your understanding of philosophy is limited, it can really change your life. It has done that for me, but at the same time, it's caused me problems as well. This is due to the fact that I try to question all of my beliefs and this can produce deep angst, I think a lot of people do this also but you can really push your limits of understanding other than through using philosophical arguments. No other tool can yield this outcome. I would say that it's better to challenge your beliefs instead of living within your own dogmatic belief system, although who's to say what is valuable?
It's also hard to know whether my arguments or my interpretation of a philosopher captures their intended meaning. Only an expert can really try to tell you that in greater depth. Access to academic articles is also a good reference point and many are becoming free to view due to the internet. I guess if you have a fair mind, you could give yourself feedback and point out your reasoning errors, although, your bias may not be evident to you. Perhaps the only remedy to this is to read, write and learn more philosophy! or to write on forums, blogs, etc. and wait for other's feedback...
I'm sure you would also say that you experience some of the same problems I've mentioned and that will always be the case no matter how long you study or teach philosophy.
needed this, thank you!
O wow YOU made a video! 3 of them!!
I'll be making more in the near future, too. I'm planning to finish out this series over the next month or so. Expect new videos roughly every week.
the idea of a core and a protective belt blew my mind... thank you for making these ideas so digestible... im more of a right-brain thinker :)
Thank you for the help!!
excellent!! just what i need to know
0:51 Lakatos is *not* pronounced with a long _o_ as in _toe_ , but with a short _o_ .
thank you!!!
Slow down a bit just, take your time. You start stuttering towards the end. But awesome video helped me alot for studying for my psych and science exam.
If we compare between different paradigms in a scientific field, there would not be any progression in sciencetific field. Because if we accept new scientific paradigm, we need to completely deny it the previous one. An example: Aristotle’s Physic used by people for thousands of years. After that Galileo and Newton created the basic of classical physic and people get more interested this classical physic and more using it but after then people’s paradigm got changed and now we are using modern physic. So this is the reason why different paradigms are not comparable
because even modern physic now we are using, it might be old paradigm in the future. So if we accept these paradigms were wrong, we didn’t make any progress in science at all but if we accept these paradigms are incommensurability that would be a lot of progress have been made in science. And even scientists made a lot of useful inventions so far.
❤️
Was there a philosopher that claimed scientific truth or progress works.via pragmatism?
There are indeed. Charles Sanders Peirce was one of the original American Pragmatists, and he did a lot of work on philosophy of science. So did John Dewy, another pragmatist.
SisyphusRedeemed thanks. I'm big on pragmatism. I've read a little bit of Dewey since I'm a huge Rorty fan. I'll check out Pierce because of you, thank you. If any more modern philosophers come to mind let me know. I'm drowning in Quine at the moment. 6 months of Quine and I'm still not quenched.
It's actually pronounced something like Luckatowsh , with a short ow, and not Emir but Eem-reh :)
proof: the wikipedia page's phonetic description
more proof: search for a video titled "Ki volt Lakatos Imre? [2]" in which you'll find the name pronounced correctly. Oh and in Hungarian the first and the last names are inverted.
Thank you, I was looking for such a corroboration a lot! No idea why so much certainty in the original poster, I hate it when people are certain amid their ignorance.
I'm Lakatos intolerant though.
It's strange to say that there is no over-arching method to science while at the same time saying that we should trust scientists as a community. If there is no method to science, then what distinguishes a scientist from a non-scientist? Maybe walking my dog counts as science and therefore I am a highly prolific scientist and my voice should be counted in the trusted scientific community.
"what distinguishes a scientist from a non-scientist? "
Good question. Suffice to say Lakatos and Kuhn both agree that there is SOMETHING that distinguishes scientists from non-scientists, but it's not something as simple as 'scientists follow method X, non-scientists don't.' Rather, it's going to be more of a 'family resemblance' thing. Sure Donald Trump can CLAIM that he looks just like Leonardo DiCaprio's brother, but everyone else is going to see that bullshit. Likewise, a dog-walker can CLAIM that he's a scientist, but the rest of us will see that as bullshit. We don't need to define a clear and distinct 'scientific method' to make this determination, any more than we need a clear and distinct 'DiCaprio Brothers' face to make the determination about Trump. Sometime are judgment really is enough.
"It's going to be more of a 'family resemblance' thing."
We're supposed to trust some community, but we can't be told how to recognize the community. We just need to base it on a feeling, so effectively we're trusting those people who seem trustworthy to us. Science becomes the things said by the people who say the things that sound true to you. It's easy to see how such a philosophy could gain popularity since it nicely confirms whatever we already think about science. Psychic researchers trust their community because that looks like science to them while Intelligent Design researchers trust their community for the same reason, and everyone is happy.
Why not skip the middleman and just believe whatever seems plausible and call that science?
In your example of Darwinian evolution I'd argue you have the core and the bridge muddled up: natural selection is very much in the core, and while common ancestry is also in the core, universal common ancestry is not essential to the theory. Darwin certainly did not know whether there were one or many independent origins of life, and if hypothetically truly alien life were found on Europa, and it turned out to have no common ancestry with life on earth at all, it wouldn't threaten the core of natural selection. In addition, the idea of common ancestry goes back long before Charles Darwin; he did not propose it, his major contribution was explaining the changes to organisms over time by natural (and sexual) selection, so it is not unique to the Darwinian theory of evolution. I don't really think that's relevant to whether or not common ancestry is in the core of the theory, but you could argue that it's wrong to use the specific term Darwinian evolution unless you're referring to the theory including natural selection.
Yeah, fair points. I probably should have put a little more background research into the examples. But I was under time pressure and just grabbed the first thing my mind settled on. Thanks for the constructive feedback.
Serious question. I may have missed it in the biography, but what exactly gave people like Kuhn and Lakatos the impression that they were remotely qualified to speak on the topic of what science is and how it works? It seems to me that you should be consulting actual scientists with a long history of accomplishments and research before asking what exactly it is they do. Did either of these guys have any respectable scientific career before they began to dabble in philosophy of science?
Kuhn was a trained physicist, earning a PhD in physics from Harvard. Lakatos had an undergrad degree in mathematics and physics, but was prevented from getting a PhD when the Germans invaded Hungary (he later got a PhD in philosophy and mathematics).
But I actually would challenge your assumption that scientists actually know best what science is. Obviously their perspective is important, but they are often too close to their particular area of expertise to have a good perspective on science as a whole. This is why artists usually don't make the best art historians, for example.
"It seems to me that you should be consulting actual scientists with a long history of accomplishments and research before asking what exactly it is they do."
That's is exactly backward. First we need to know what a scientist does and only then can we find an actual scientist with a long history of accomplishment based on our understanding of science. How could we recognize a scientist if we don't know what science is? Don't forget that there are plenty of people who will claim to be scientists while actually advocating for pseudo-scientific ideas like Intelligent Design or psychic powers. Unless we have a clear idea of what scientists do, there is plenty of room for confusion over what counts as a long history of accomplishments in science.
This demand for Kuhn's qualifications sounds like its rooted in the idea that scientists are an authoritative elite that holds the answers and distributes them to us, much like a religious hierarchy. Not only is this elite the keepers of answers to scientific questions, but they are being given authority over the question of what counts as science, so they determine their own job description. If the elite of science decided that scientific answers come from a Ouija board, would we therefore call that science just because they said so?
Okay, so they earned degrees. Then what? What were their careers after the fact? Did they have a solid track record of actually doing science for some time before waxing philosophical about the nature of science? What discoveries did they make and what projects where they involved with? What were their major roles and accomplishments? That's kind of what I'm getting at. It's hard to appreciate their perspective without understanding where it even comes from. For example, the administrators at NASA are going to have an entirely different view of science than the engineers doing the actual grunt work.
*Don't forget that there are plenty of people who will claim to be scientists while actually advocating for pseudo-scientific ideas like Intelligent Design or psychic powers.*
That's exactly my point. What makes Kuhn and Lakatos any different from Dembsky or Wells? What are their qualifications? What is their record of achievement? What makes their perspective any more valid? You're chastising me for the expressing exact same concern you're voicing right now.
"It's hard to appreciate their perspective without understanding where it even comes from."
No philosophical opinion should ever rest upon the authority of the person who created it. It shouldn't matter whether Kuhn is a master of all fields of science or if Kuhn is a raving fool. Kuhn's ideas should be judged on their own merit
please, make ur speech more understandable, just please speaking quietly