Imre Lakatos(in Ugrian Lakatosh- eel. Lakatos Imre, right name Avrum Lipshits; 9 leaf fall, Debrecen - 2 lyutv, London) - English philosopher of the Ugric approach, one of the representatives of post-positivism and critical rationalism.
Biography
At the same time, after a re-search of the Jews (Yogo mother and grandmother perished in Auschwitz), after embarrassment, change the name to Molnar (in Ugric - Melnik), then to Lakatosh (the same name was worn by Prime Minister Geza Lakatosh, who spoke out against the existence Ugric Jews). Іsnuє y іnsha point of dawn, for some kind of “proletarian” nickname Lakatosh (Slyusar) has accepted, power to work in the order of the Ugor People's Republic. In Russian tradition, it is customary to transfer yoga by the pseudonym yak Lakatos.
Since then, I have started postgraduate study at Moscow University under S.A. A short hour as a functionary of the Department of Culture at the Ministry of Education of the Communist Ugrian Region. At the same time, having changed the wine under a strong infusion of ideas of his spivvitchizniks Gyorgy-Lukach, Gyorgy-Poya (Lakatosh having translated the book “Yak Virishuvati zavdannya” into Ugrian yoga) and Shandor-Karachony (Eel) Russian..
Methodology of past programs
Lakatos, describing science as a competitive struggle of "science-recent programs" that are developing "hard core" a priori adopted from the system of fundamental allowances, which cannot be sprostovanymi in the middle of the program, that "foreign belt" additional hypotheses-ad-hoc, which are modified and attached to counter-applied programs. The evolution of a specific program is considered to be a change in the definition of the “foreign belt”, the collapse of the “hard core” theoretically means the change of the program and the replacement of another, which competes.
The main criterion for the scientific content of the Lakatos program is the increase in the actual knowledge of the rahunoks and the transferred strength. As long as the program gives an increase in knowledge, the work of a scientist within its framework "rational". If the program is exercising permissive force and beginning to work only on the “belt” of additional hypotheses, Lakatos is punished to act in a further development. However, it seems that in the last few years the previous program is experiencing its internal crisis and again gives scientific results; in such a rank, the “veracity” of the learned program is called up at the hour of the crisis is recognized by Lakatos. "rational".
Method of rational reconstructions
The method of rational reconstruction of the history of science of Lakatos's stasis at the book Prove that swearing to the history of proving the theorem of Descartes-Euler-Cauchy about the difference between the number of vertices, edges and faces of a fairly good-shaped polyhedron. With this in mind, Lakatos gives a broader picture of the history of mathematics, especially the history of mathematical analysis and programming of mathematics in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Lakatos discusses the history of mathematics like a linguo,
“re-verification of an outstanding proof is often even more delicate undertaking, and, in order to attack the“ pardon ”, it is necessary to use intuition and happiness, and in order to spend on proof; giving “pardons” to informal proofs can sometimes take a decade, or even a century. Informal quasi-empirical mathematics does not develop as a monotonous increase in the number of endlessly proving theorems, but only through endless repetition to allow for additional thought and criticism, for additional logic, proving that prostuvannya.
The book itself is written in the form of a historical record, and the form of a school dialogue. Vykoristovuyuchi dialogical method, Lakatos piece by piece constructs a problem situation, deforming the understanding of the "Euler bagatohedron". Rational reconstruction by Lakatos does not reflect all the details of real history, but is created specifically for rational explanation of the development of scientific knowledge.
INSTUP
Emphasizing the regularity of the development of scientific knowledge, the British philosopher and historian of science Imre Lakatos (1922-1974) meta his achievements in the logical and normative reconstruction of the processes of changing knowledge and inspiring the logic of the development of scientific theories on the basis of the real historical development of science.
In his early works (from some of the most famous “Prove that Prove that Prove that Speech”), Lakatos propagated a variant of the logic of zdogadiv and prostouvannya, zastosuvshi as a rational reconstruction of the development of knowledge in mathematics of the XVII-XIX centuries. Already in this period of time, he clearly stated about those that “the dogma of logical positivism is detrimental to the history and philosophy of mathematics ... The history of mathematics and the logic of mathematical reasoning, so that the phylogeny and otnogeny of mathematical thought cannot be separated without sufficient formal criticism.”
To the rest (as the essence of logical positivism), Lakatos opposes the program of analysis to the development of zmistovnoi mathematics, based on the unity of logic and proving that proposition. This analysis is nothing more than a logical reconstruction of the real historical process of scientific knowledge. The line of analysis of the processes of change and the development of knowledge is continued by the philosopher in a series of articles and monographs, in which the universal concept of the development of science is laid down, based on the ideas of competing scientific research programs.
In this abstract, the main points of this concept will be examined further. The method of this work is the reflection of the main ideas of the philosophy of science of Imre Lakatos, as well as the extension of the laws of growth of scientific knowledge to the ideas of Imre Lakatos.
1. THE MAIN IDEA OF THE METHODOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC AND RESEARCH PROGRAMS I І ЇЇ MET
As a result of post-positivist criticism, especially the historicist criticism of Kuhn and Feyrabend, "rationalism" took the suttivist blow. “Earlier,” said W. Newton-Smith, “there was little said about the non-rationalistic models of explaining changes in science ...”, but rationality was panned. Narazі situation changed dramatically. “How does our rationalist feel?, - Ask for wine. - Zatskovaniya, tumbles and beatings for those who are unlikely to accept guilt, defended alive. The vision of V. Newton-Smith appears in the program of Popper's "faded rationalism", carried out by Lakatos, with the entrance to the classical understanding of the truth at the bik "closer to the truth", "increasing verisimilitude", the growth of "transferring power".
So, Lakatos repeatedly affirms that theories of guilt exist, and this criterion of “progressive solving of problems”, in fact, establishes a constructive criterion for efficiency during the selection of recent programs. However, for Popper, I will vote the faith in those that the truth is true and that the scientific theories are approaching it, spiraling on the evidence, although we can’t have criteria, spiraling on the yakі we could be stverzhuvaty, that given the last of the theories.
The main unit of the model of science by Imre Lakatos (1922–1974) is the “old program”, which is composed of the “hard core” and the “hard belt”. Model of science I. Lakatos (like the model of T.Kun) can be two equals: the specific theories that make up the lesser "old belt" of the "older program", and the equalizer of the immutable "hard core", which designates the person of the "older program". Various previous programs create “zhorstki cores”, tobto. between them there is a one-to-one correspondence.
The appearance of this model is swayed by the fact that Lakatos, on the one hand, is not satisfied with Kuniv's "link of philosophy of science to psychology of science." “From Kuhn's glance, - it seems, wine, - the change of scientific knowledge - from one "paradigm" to another - a mystical transformation, as it cannot and cannot rule. Tse subject of psychology (possibly social psychology) vіdkrittya. (Thus) the change of scientific knowledge is similar to the change of religious faith. This position of Kuhn is brought to irrationalism.
On the other hand, Lakatos supports Kuhn's and Feyrabend's thesis about the existence of "viral experiments" as a criterion for choosing between theories. “There is nothing like that, - it’s like wine, - that could be called virish experiments, if you understand them, such experiments, like a building negligently transfer the next program. Indeed, if one previous program recognizes the defeats and її vitiсnyaє іnsha, you can - respectfully wondering at the past - call the experiment virishal, as if to fall into a new effective butt confirming the program's mediocrity, that I overcame, and I also proved the obvious failure. The victorious experiments are recognized as such only after a decade (backdating) "" The status of the "virishal" experiment lies in the nature of theoretical competition, in the same way as the faults of studies" . Lakatos shows the example of the Michelson-Morley experiment and others. Iomu is close to Kunov's thesis about those that "the primordial paradigm, without replacement, means another virtuoso of science." "There can't be any falsification, first a shorter theory will appear" - say Lakatos, [Lakatos, p. 307].
To put Lakatos as a metaphor to develop the thesis of the poper’s “critical rationalism” about the rationality of changes in scientific knowledge, “to go beyond the shelling of Kunov’s criticism, and to look at the scientific revolution as a progress of knowledge, which is rationally constructed, and not in a new way” To this end, you expand your methodology of "pre-sliding programs"
2. "LOGIC OF VIDKRITTYA" I ЇЇ CHOTIRI FORMI
Lakatos sees different “logic of judgment”: inductivism, conventionalism, methodological falsification (Popper), methodological scientific research programs (Lakatos). Having looked at the features of these methodological concepts, we are convinced that “recent programs and the greatest scientific achievements can be evaluated on the basis of a progressive and regressive soundness of problems; in his own scientific revolution in one who has one long program (progressively) wins another”.
Speaking against the aprioristic and anti-theoretical approach to the methodology of science, Lakatos, zokrema, means that the wisdom of the scientific court and other precedents cannot be accurately expressed by the laws of the world, formulated by the philosopher - such as F. Bacon, R. Carnap and K. Popper. On the right, in the fact that, on one thought, science as a whole can appear as a “violator of the rules of the scientific grime” established by other philosophers. To that, in the first place, a “pluralistic system of authorities” is necessary, and, in another way, with the variability of methodological recommendations (like Lakatos argues in methodological assessments), it should be more widely relied on the history of knowledge (philosophical and scientific) and її results.
Whether scientific (rational) methodology is not self-contained, but forever, according to Lakatos, it will require additional socio-psychological, “modern history” - and in this broad context, expand and function. It is worthwhile whether there are any methodological concepts, and the methodology of the previous programs can be supplemented by “empirical modern history”, i.e., rational, socio-cultural officials. Їx education is an important task of sociology and knowledge of social psychology.
At the link with the cim Lakatos, it is shown that the representatives of these sciences are guilty of understanding fundamental scientific ideas, but “the sociology of knowledge often serves as a screen for which there is lack of power: more sociologists of knowledge do not understand and learn not to think.”
3. RATIONAL RECONSTRUCTION OF THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE AND INTERNATIONALITY
The term "real history" in Lakatos is vaguely about those that can be summed up by the term "real empirical history of science". I’ll stop looking at a wider context - within the framework of history, like science, like, on the other hand, theory and reconstruction of history, like impersonal historical hypotheses and possibly estimating character.
It is clear that for Lakatos the history of science is the history of “scientific approaches”, chosen and interpreted by a singing normative order. The main lines, moments of the interpretation of wines are presented as follows: “(a) the philosophy of science vibrates normative methodology, on the basis of which the historian reconstructs the “internal history” and by himself gives a rational explanation of the growth of objective knowledge; (c) two competing methodologies can be evaluated for additional normatively interpreted history; (c) whether a rational reconstruction of history would require additional empirical (social-psychological) "outward history"".
Methodological analysis, carrying out with the method of revealing the scientific content of chi іnshої presidnitskoї program, razpadaetsya, on the thought of Lakatos, such stages: visualization of rational reconstruction; comparison of the rest of the scientific (real, empirical) history of modern science; criticism of rational reconstruction for the existence of historicity and the actual history of science - for the existence of rationality.
The methodological help is important, as it needs to be done, it is believed that “history without some kind of theoretical principles is impossible”; all histories - wanting the stench of that chi n - may have some theoretical attitudes, yak and direct the process of reconstruction of science in a rational way to "reconciliation". Prote tse "victory" for scientific activity and її results, although archival, but not one, more sociocultural corruption.
At the link with the cim Lakatos, to introduce the concept of “internal history” - the very rational reconstruction is like that, and “outward history” - everything is rational, the greatest (and main) interest is to become the “subjective factors” itself, which fall out of the field of dawn internal (rational) history. Shards, on the other hand, the most important problems of contemporary history are determined by internal history, then the rest are primary.
The merit of Lakatos Poleyad in that, Scho Vіn Chіtko Usvіdomlowav, Tu slaughter, Scho Ratsіonalna Reconstruction of the Istorії's science "Can't Baoi Vychuyvnia through those, Scho People not є Schi-Todi, Kolya Voni Dyyut Ratzіonally, vonya Mati Sobistі theorem rational diy". Explaining his hardness of wines, he shows that the existence of human judgments has ceased to be more rational, and that rational reconstruction is, if it can, escape from real history. Looking back at this situation, Lakatos means that this historiographical historical program cannot and is not guilty of explaining the entire history of science as rational. Explaining this thought, I’m guessing that I can see in the past to pardon the babies and have mercy on their courts.
Beyond the framework of rational reconstructions there is still an "ocean of anomalies" (subjective, valuable ones), where are the reconstructions zanurenni. Ale yak qi "anomalies" explain? Zgіdno z Lakatos, you can work with two paths: either for an additional short rational reconstruction, or for an additional work of the “greater” empirical theory, that for an additional socio-cultural factor, the development of science and their ostentatious. When you need a mother in your country, scho "rationality is more plentiful, it is better to think, and before that you can have mercy."
4. RESEARCH PROGRAM
"Science-relevant program" - the main understanding of the concept of science of Lakatos. Vaughn, on the other hand, is the main unit of development and assessment of scientific knowledge. Under the science-based program of philosophers, a series of theories that change one another, unite the sum total of fundamental ideas and methodological principles. Whether a scientific theory is guilty of being evaluated at once with its additional hypotheses, cob minds and, smut, order with previous theories. Strictly ostensibly, the object of methodological analysis is not a hypothesis or a theory, but a series of theories, i.e., a singing type of development.
In this program, the core is seen - the main principles, or the law of the “girdle”, with which the core is honed for itself in the ways of victorious empirical difficulties (for the obviousness of the super-clear data, Newton's laws do not just happen, but an additional theory is created that develops these laws). Theory, if it is falsified, is less replaced by another, more rational one. The next program: either progressing (as a theoretical growth and development of the empirical - as a result of prognostic functions), or regressing (as a theoretical development of the empirical; in this case, the first program is replaced by a friend). At the concept of Lakatos, through the activity of a learned speech, it is a global super-special process, the nature of which is not revealed, but present, because we ourselves do not create a choice, - like Lakatos, - those, how the choice of the program is still developing in the history of science ?
GOSTIVE SVIY METHOD, FILOSOPHOP PRAUTH SHOE (І TSA BOOL IS IS IS IS METHODOLOGISHNY OF THE CONCISION OF FOODCIONUONUEє YAK ISTORIOGIOGIOVNY (Abo Metaistoric) she's preaching.
Real_zatskyi Tsієї Meti won his Vtivennya Mainlya of the concept of the concepts of Lakatos, Yaka, for the words, "Polyaguє in that, my" Methodologian "on Vіdmin Vіd Kolichnіh zіlkomi Тормина и и цінойє Цілкокі домодоваі і і і и на новіра цеповати no hopes of good theories, no choice between two competing programs. My "methodological rules" are based on the rationality of the acceptance of Einstein's theory, but the stench does not stink at the practice of Einstein's legacy program, and not Newton's. Tim himself was the concept of Lakatos less estimating the aggregation of theories (last programs) in that formed "ready-made" look, but the very mechanism of its formation and development. The knowledge of which mechanism is “lost in the shadows”, is not the subject of a special analysis, but is not completely ignored. The main respect is based on the criteria for evaluating the results of the development of scientific knowledge, and not the process itself. At the same time, Lakatos is blatant that "be it a historical record, it is possible to change the heuristic interpretation: the history of science without the philosophy of science is a blind man."
Structure of the program: zgіdno z Lakatos, skin science-based program, as a collection of singing theories, including:
- "zhorstke core" - a whole system of fundamental, private-scientific and ontological allowances that are taken from all theories of this program;
- "zahisny belt", which is formed from additional hypotheses and ensures the security of the "zhorst core" in the form of a call; Vіn mozhe buti modifications, chastkovo or povnіstyu replacements when closed with counter-butts;
- normative, methodological rules-regulators, like punishing, like ways of the most promising for further progress (“positive heuristics”), some ways of being unique (“negative heuristics”).
Characterizing the scientific and recent programs, Lakatos shows the following features:
- supernice;
- universality - stinks can be stagnant, zokrema, and up to ethics and aesthetics;
- the function has been transferred: the skin program is obliged to lead to a greater improvement, to the “theoretical destruction of problems”;
- The main stages of the development of the program are progress and regression, between these stages - the “point of achievement”.
The new program can explain those things that the old one could not. Changing the program of science revolution.
5. PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS
If this parameter is left, Lakatos respects that, first, it is not the fault of the previous program, as it is not efficient: such a rule is not a universal rule.
In a friend, Vіn Vokhlovlyuє Dumka і about those, Shaho "Methodologian Delivery Program could see us to formulyvati Закины, Які steel b on a shit Bіlokіv Інтелентульний камольі, yaka zaporoguє Skopiti Our Cultural Headovishche Ranish, Nіzh іdstrіalnі Vіjkyt the middle of our residence."
Thirdly, Lakatos respects that the understanding of science, as a field of struggle for previous programs, and not about theories, transfers a new criterion of demarcation between "mature science", which is formed from previous programs and "immature from the warehouse of science", which is try". pardon." Fourthly, “we can evaluate the following programs to bring up the aftermath of their elimination by their heuristic strength: how many new facts they stink to give, how much building is great to explain the demand for the process of growth” .
WISNOVOK
With his robots, Lakatos shows that in the history of science, periods rarely trap, if one program (paradigm) indefinitely pans, as if stverdzhuvav Kuhn. Sound at the be-yakіy scientific discipline є kіlka of alternative scientific and recent programs. Behind Lakatos, the history of the development of science is the history of the struggle and change of competing previous programs, which rely on the basis of their heuristic strength, explaining empirical facts, transferring ways to the development of science and accepting counter-attacks against weakened forces.
The concept of future programs I. Lakatosa can, as he himself demonstrates, but is stastosovana and to the very methodology of science.
At the visnovka, you can sprout the visnovka. Imre Lakatos is a prominent philosopher and methodologist of science of the XX century. You have a lot of valuable practice, which have become classic for philosophy and methodology of science. Methodology of scientific and recent programs of the most important and important work of the Ugric-British philosopher Imre Lakatos. Today the concept of scientific rationality, razrobleny at tsіy methodology, has taken its place in the history of philosophy and methodology of science.
List of references
1. Lakatos I. Methodology of scientific research programs. - M.: Nutrition of philosophy. 1995. No. 4. - 356 p.
2. Lakatos I. Falsification and methodology of scientifically advanced programs. M.: Academic project. 1995. - 423 h
3. Mikeshin L. A. Methodology of scientific knowledge in the context of culture. M. Academic project. 1992. - 278 p.
4. Modern philosophy of science. Reader. (Storage, translation, introductory article and commentary by A.A. Pechenkin). M: Nauka, 1994.
5. Kuhn T. Structure of scientific revolutions M: AST, 2001.
Fall 9, 1922, Budapest - February 2, 1974, London) - Ugric philosopher and methodologist of science, one of the most famous representatives of "critical rationalism". In 1956 he emigrated from the Ugrian region to Austria, then to England. Worked with Cambridge, since 1960 - with the London School of Economics, where he became close to K. Popper. Lakatos reminiscent of the principle of falsification as a methodological basis of the theory of scientific rationality with a new twist. Accordingly to this principle, the rationality of scientific activity is due to the readiness of the scientific recognition of a scientific hypothesis, if it sticks with the evidence, it’s super-readable (not only of recognition, but of pragment to the possible hypotheses). Falsifikatsionizm poddnuvav in its postulates of empirism and rationality: rationality is based on the universalization of empiricism, and empiricism is known to be adequately embedded in the criterion of rationality. Lakatos expanded this link to the area of mathematics that is being developed. Behind its rational structure, the paths of scientific research in mathematics are the same as in empirical natural science: “counter-applications” are revealed, the last example is modified, the hypotheses are drawn, the proof is perfected, and the heuristic adverbial potential is admitted. However, in mathematics, and in empirical science, the rationality of criticism does not mean that there is a possibility of a negligent rejection of the formation of hypotheses. The most important vipadkіv rational behavior of the last one is to take revenge on one's low intellectual strategies, the most important of them - to go forward, not stumbling through the okremі nedachі, like a new success and success. It is not to speak of the history of science, but to speak superficially of dogmatic falsification. Lakatos having tried a historical approach to science from the conservation of a rationalistic attitude. This was the reason for the development of the methodological concept of “twisted falsificationism”, which is most often called the methodology of scientifically advanced programs. The rational development of science is presented in this concept as a super-number of "conceptual systems", the elements of which can act not only as an understanding and judgment, but also as a folding complex of theories that are dynamically developing, and subsequent projects of those interrelationships. Such systems are organized in the form of some fundamental ideas that establish the “zhorst core” of a scientifically advanced program (sound tsі ideї vysuvayutsya іntelektualnymi leaders of science and zavoyuyuyutsya scientific coherence dogmatically). The methodological sense of the “hard core” is revealed by the concept of “negative heuristics”, that is, it is shackled to the probing procedures: as the theory sticks with simple facts, then the hardness that enters the warehouse of the “hard core” does not come out; natomist vcheni clarify, develop already іsnuyuchi chi hang new “additional hypotheses”, as if they establish the “girdle of the past” like the “solid core”. The task of the “zahisny belt” is for those who could better take away the creative potential of the previous program from the shortcomings, or “positive heuristics”. The function remains in order to ensure the uninterrupted growth of scientific knowledge, the destruction of this empirical zmist (explaining the daedal of the broadest number of phenomena, correcting the shortcomings and pardons of "simple experiments"). Vmoga zbіlshennya empіrіchnogo zmіstu є, for Lakatos, the head mind and criterion of scientific rationality: rationally dіє that sleddnik, who chooses the optimal strategy for zbіlshennyа empirіchnyh znіstі, be-yaku іnshu іnshу ї irrationally. The methodology of scientifically advanced programs formulates the rules, which optimizes the strategy. . Tacke, for example, tend to scho viznachaє "progresivnіst" tієї chi іnshoї NAUKOVO-doslіdnoї prog "Progressive zsuv problems" zabezpechuєtsya zbіlshennyam empіrichnogo zmіstu novoї teorії in porіvnyannі of її competitors tobto zbіlshennyam zdatnostі peredbachati novі, ranіshe not vіdomі Fakti poєdnannі of empіrichnim confirmation of these new facts. If the rule ceases to work and the scientifically proven program begins to “stupidly in the field”, taking a goal. about. “Self-truthful”, i.e., usuvaє anomalies with additional hypotheses ad hoc, and yet with the old growth of empirical truth, we can say that the program has entered the stage of “virogeneity” and can be easily replaced by another, productive program. Similar rules at once approve the theory of scientific rationality, which continues the growth of science as a change in scientific theories, united by a fundamental scientific program. Lakatos kritikuvav sprobi "sotsіologіzatsії" epіstemologії in yakih phone reception science of culture іstorієyu traktuvavsya yak zalezhnіst NAUKOVO-pіznavalnogo Process, zmіstu NAUKOVO teorіy that metodіv, protsesіv viniknennya that rozvitku conceptual systems od "pozanaukovih" (psihologіchnih, sotsіalno-psihologіchnih, sotsіologіchnih) factors. In support of the idea of “rational reconstruction” of the history of science, without giving any special meaning to the thesis about the “inconsistency of scientific theories”, which changes one in the course of the scientific evolution, which is an argument against the theory, Pand. in).
Lakatos shukav possibility to move to the history of science on the basis of rationalism. The methodology of "twisted falsificationism" is of little help to nutrition: how are they formed, changed and then "featured", i.e., are they vindicated by competitors, scientifically advanced programs? In real historical and scientific situations, factors shaping and transforming scientific knowledge are manifested in the middle of metaphysical ideas, in the middle of religious beliefs, and in the middle of ideological and political orientations. Thus, Lakatos proponuvav vrakhovuvati “on the margins” of rational reconstructions of the “internal” history of science and bring to light the “outward” history of a normal, rationally reconstructed course of action. Tse gave an opportunity to some critics to call Lakatos among the non-stochastic "historical sense" (S. Tulmin, K. Huebner, P. Feyerabend and others). In "rational reconstructions" the most important processes of scientific development were called "irrational". However, in the opinion of the critics, it was more about the narrowness of Lakatos's appearance about rationality, lower about the kind of "irrationalism" of real science. Prote methodology of Lakatos is the most important tool for the rational analysis of science, one of the most significant achievements of the methodology of science in the 20th century.
Cit.: Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic. - The Problem of Inductive Logic. L., 1968; The Changing Logic of Scientific Discovery. L. 1973; Proofs and Refutations and Other Essays in Philosophy of Mathematics. L. 1974; Prove that prostuvannya. Moscow, 1967; History of science and rational reconstruction. - In the book: Structure i] paiBimic science. M., 1978; Neskinchenny regression and substantiation of mathematics. - In the book: Modern philosophy of science. Reader. М. M. 1995.
Vіdmіnne vyznachennya
Not exactly appointed ↓
Lakatos (1922-1974) - the third name of this great scientist. Under the hour of Another light war of turmoil, you will change the Jewish name Lipshits in the Molnar Ugorsk, and later taking the name Lakatos. In 1947 the Ugrian nobleman was arrested for calls to the revisionists and sentenced to three years of camps. In 1956, I emigrated to Austria, and then to Great Britain, de z 1960. worked at the Department of Philosophy of the London School of Economics. There Imre Lakatos got to know K. Popper, whose ideas he successfully developed and modernized in his philosophical and methodological practices.
As a philosopher himself, his theory of past programs is a modernized version of the falsification of K. Popper (I. Lakatos calls his methodology of past programs “to counterfeit falsifications”). Yak and Popper, Lakatos looks at the development of science from the point of view of the logic of science, i.e., recognizes the main "driver" of internal (rational in their nature) officials, recognizing Kuhn's assertion about the vital role of social and psychological officials.
I. Lakatos considers as a functional unit of scientific knowledge not a theory, but a series of interrelations that continue one single theory. Such a sequence possesses the name of the next program. On the understanding of theoretical progress I. Lakatos establishes his own understanding of the criteria for science. A science may not be a theory, but an advanced program - for your mind, that there can be a building to transfer new facts. Zdatnist program of transferring new facts I. Lakatos is called heuristic power. The theoretical progress of the program is within reach of that, because as a result of this stosuvannya vinikaє the possibility of expanding the empirical knowledge, to convey new facts. If the programs are constantly being brought up to a practical conclusion of the transfer of facts, then in reality there is an empirical progress. Otherwise, in spite of the increase in the number of theories, there is no increase in explaining the facts, but we can rightly see the regressive destruction of the previous program.
The development of the final program is governed by two main groups of methodological rules: one of them describes methods that need to be unique (negative heuristics), others indicate the most important ways to follow (positive heuristics).
The headline rule of negative heuristics establishes a list of basic hypotheses (“zhorstke core”), which can be placed under the summaries of the programs. Just the core of the program, in fact, is the prism that science facts are considered.
In the presence of a hard core, you can only move in that moment, as the program cannot be more advanced before not knowing the facts, so that it will become theoretically regressive; just the core of the world is no more at once from the program itself.
Positive heuristics is formed from secondary arguments and allowances, which are necessary in order to clarify and modify the program. Cі bring to form the "zahisniy belt" programs, shards stick to a concrete empirical reality - this is how you explain those facts.
ty (anomalies), yakі can prostuvati firmness, scho enter to the "core", that stench of anomalies are transformed on the cherd of confirmation of the program.
The heuristics are positive in pobudovі models (according to the appointment of I. Lakatos, “the model is impersonal of borderline minds (perhaps, at the same time with some kind of “cautious” theories), about how it seems that the stench is to blame for the replacement in the course of further development of the program. "methods, scho to enter the "zahisnogo belt", not once and once again installed and can be accepted and relinquished fallow, in order to better develop their adaptive function.
I. Lakatos direct Taqiy butt: Yakscho astronomer, yaky pratsyuє within nyutonіvskoї teoretichnoї mehanіki, obchisliv traєktorіyu yakoїs novovіdkritoї Planet i Yakscho sposterezhennya for her pokazuyut scho planet ruhaєtsya zovsіm not tsієyu traєktorієyu, astronomer Zroby visnovku scho yogo sposterezhennya sprostovuyut teorіyu Newton - tse zaboronyaєtsya By the rules of negative heuristics, Newton's theory can enter into the warehouse of a hard core and is impossible to emerge from a system that does not collapse. More than anything, our hero will try to explain the behavior of the planet, whether it be some unsound factors, for example, there is one planet, whose weight is pouring into the first. Tse viyav positive heuristics.
On the basis of which one can explain and understand the theoretical progress. Vіn matime mіsce, yakscho vcheni i vera viyavlyat hypothetical to another planet, - we see that the previous program could convey a new fact. If the planet does not appear, then the devil's adaptive hypotheses should enter on the right. The stench can prove, for example, that the planet is chained by the gloomy cosmic saw, that it is impossible to fall into a modern telescope, and so on.
Elimination of the scientifically advanced programs, for I. Lakatos, it is not through the appearance of facts that one can superimpose this theory (as if by invading K. Popper), but through indeterminacy explain and turn it into one’s own confirmation (in other words, the theory exhausts its heuristic strength). Such a program can easily be seen by someone else, as if you can explain the anomalies, before which the helplessness of the front appeared. In addition, the new program can explain the non-transverse shift in front. Vitіsnennya naukovoї teorії, as vvazhaє Lakatos, not vіdbuvaєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєєє vіdbuєє vіdbіvіvі vіvlennya її аnomalyії - not about yak falsіkіkії not yedetsі doti, docks not z'appear best program.
L. R. Khamzina
lakatos imre
(1922 -1974) Ugrian-Brit. philosopher and historian of science. Rid. in the Ugorshchina, at the beginning of another world war, taking a part in the anti-fascist support. During the period of Nazism, he changed his rightful name (Lipshits) to Molnar (Melnik), and for the time of the rule of communists to the greater proletarian Lakatosh (Joiner). On the dissertation on the philosophy of mathematics, I worked at the Moscow University. For example, the 40s of the soundings of revisionism and over three years of recognition. In 1956 I emigrated to Austria, then to England. Since 1960, he contributed to the London School of Economics, becoming a student and follower of Popper and, with his robots, making an important contribution to the philosophy and methodology of critical rationalism. In the early works of L., having propagated the original version of the logic of zdogadiv and prostuvannya, zastosuvshi as a rational reconstruction of the growth of knowledge in mathematics of the XVII-XIX centuries. Frequently reviewing his current methodological attitudes, L. later developed a universal concept for the development of science, which is based on the ideas of competing scientific research programs. L.'s methodology examines the growth of the "mature" theoretical science as a change of previous programs, which to establish a sequence of theories without interruption. The skin theory of the program (after a blink of an eye) is blamed as the result of adding additional hypotheses to the previous theory. The security of the software is subject to special regulations. Deyakі z tsikh rules punish, with some paths to follow for an hour of distant dolіdzhen (“positive heuristics”), otherwise it seems that some paths here are unique (“negative heuristics”). An important structural element of the doslidnitsky programs is the "zhorstke core", which combines not mentally required, specific for the program, the fundamental allowance. "Negative heuristics" hinders in the process of re-verification of previous programs to straighten the modus tollens rule of classical logic on the "short core" in case of congestion with anomalies and counter-applications. Natomistry won't propagate the guilt of finding additional hypotheses that will establish the "foreign belt" like the "zhorst core" of the previous program. Tsey zahisny belt can be modified, or it can be replaced again with the facts that the programs should supersede. On the other hand, "positive heuristics" includes ideas and recipes, how to modify or develop the theory, how not to show empirical re-verification, how to modify or clarify the "foreign belt", how new models are necessary to expand the programming area.Vіdpovіdno to L., in the development of previous programs, two main stages can be seen - progressive and virogenous. At the progressive stage, "positive heuristics" stimulates the development of additional hypotheses that expand the empirical and theoretical knowledge of the program. However, nadalі, having reached the "point of insufficiency", the development of the next program sharply succumbs. A growing number of ad hoc-hypotheses, inconsequential facts, they blame internal conceptual inconsistencies, the phenomenon of thinly. The manifestation of such symptoms can still be objectively observed under the previous program. Such a basis, in L.'s thought, is only the moment of vindication of a super-notic subsequent program, as a way to explain the empirical success of one's successor, and also theoretically transfer facts that are unknown earlier, which will be taken empirically.
Of particular importance for the creation of models is the development of scientific and theoretical knowledge of L. giving historical and scientific achievements. Another aphorism is to say: "The philosophy of science without the history of science is empty; the history of science without the philosophy of science is blind." Methodological analysis, carrying out with the method of revealing the scientific content of the chi іnshої presidnitskoї program, razpadaєtsya, on yogo thought, such stages: visuvannya rational reconstruction; matching of rational reconstruction with historical and scientific data about that third period of development of advanced science; criticism of rational reconstruction for the existence of historicity and de facto history for the existence of rationality. The concept of L. is one of the best achievements of modern philosophy and methodology of science. Behind his philosophical attitudes, he was the last apprentice to rationalism, which led to Kuhn, Feyerabend and low other philosophers of science in the 60-70s of the 60s and 70s.
I. P. Merkulov
Prove that prostuvannya. M, 1967; History of Science and Rational Reconstruction // Structure of Science Tarot. M., 1978; Falsification and methodology of scientifically advanced programs. M, 1995; The Changing Logic of Scientific Discovery. L., 1973.