Philosophy final paper
In this paper, I will defend Lakatos’ research programmes by disagreeing with Kuhn’s notion
of paradigms as being the optimum instrument for scientific communities by using
Okruhlik’s ideas and arguments about credit and truth seekers.
Imre Lakatos proposed research programmes as a method for scientific communities in order
to identify what constitutes as progress. If a research programme leads to predictions and
future research for the discovery of new facts, it is progressive. On the other hand, it is
degenerating if it doesn’t allow predictions. A hard core which is the irrefutable basis and is
supported by auxiliary hypotheses which act as a protective belt constitute a research
programme. Even when research programmes are faced with anomalies and inconsistency, it
does not indicate a flaw in the hard core but in the auxiliary hypotheses (Taber, 2009).
Unlike this structure, Kuhn’s paradigms focus on the concept of puzzle solving which
suggests that scientists seek to find an existing solution with predetermined rules (Kuhn, 37).
Research programmes may have anomalies and imperfections just like paradigms, but this is
unimportant if the heuristics within a research programme leads to new discoveries which
leads to progress (Feyerabend, 11). What this allows is that even if research programmes are
degenerative and falsified, it allows scientific communities to turn degenerative programmes
into generative ones which can be explained from the case of atomism (Feyerabend, 12).
Contrary to Kuhn’s idea of how science is mainly explained with a single paradigm, Lakatos
allows multiple research programmes to exist and that even if one research programme is
dominant over the other, the minor research programmes still offer insight in science
(Musgrave and Pidgen, 2016). An example to refute Kuhn’s notion of a single paradigm
acting superior can be explained with the scientific theory of evolution (Taber, 86).
Paradigms self-validate and the factor which determines what an individual perceives to be
the truth depends on an individual’s culture which is affected by time, location, and place
(Taber, 86). This means that paradigms shift lead to different interpretations of a paradigm
but not better paradigms during scientific revolutions because of preconceived beliefs. Thus,
scientific explanations just act as one of the strands which constitute a person’s knowledge to
believe in a certain phenomenon. The theory of evolution provides refutation because natural
selection may just be one of other strands such as arguments from the bible (Adam and Eve),
Greek mythology (Castration), and Bushongo mythology (Vomiting) (Taber, 86). This
shows how science itself is just one possibility to explain a certain phenomenon and that
other strands from religion or mythology can play a role. Although this argument is not
purely scientific, this shows how Lakatos’ research programmes allows scientific
communities to pursue the most optimum explanation for human evolution which is natural
selection. This supports how a research programme with a hard core of human evolution is
