Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T06:02:13.851Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Curried Lakatos or, How Not to Spice up the Norm-Ladenness Thesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Stephen J. Wykstra
Stephen J. Wykstra*
Affiliation:
University of Tulsa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Though Imre Lakatos's ideas have been of first importance to recent History and Philosophy of Science, one of his central theses has been ill-received by philosophers and historians alike. I refer to his thesis that historiography of science is (and should be) so laden with normative philosophical doctrines about scientific rationality that “history of science without philosophy of science is blind.” (1971, p.91). In defending this ‘norm-ladenness thesis’ (as I shall call it), Lakatos employs a notion of “rational reconstruction” and “internal history” that has been indicted by Thomas Kuhn as “not history at all but philosophy fabricating examples.” (1971, p. 143). Kuhn's charge, echoed in varying degrees by Holton (1974, p. 68), Laudan (1977, p. 170), McMullin (1970, p.33), Suppe (1977, p. 669), and others, has such wide currency that I shall call it ‘the Received Critique’ of Lakatos's norm-ladenness thesis.

Type
Part I. Discovery, Rationality and History of Science
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1982 , Issue 1: Volume One: Contributed Papers 1982 , 1982 , pp. 29 - 39
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Buck, Roger and Cohen, R.S. (eds.). (1971). PSA 1970. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science. Volume 8.) Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Currie, Gregory. (1980). “The Role of Normative Assumptions in Historical Explanations.” Philosophy of Science 47: 456–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holton, Gerald. (1974). “On Being Caught Between Dionysians and Appollonians.” Daedalus 103: 65–81.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. (1970). “Reflections on My Critics.“ In Lakatos and Musgrav. (1970). Pages 231-278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. (1971). “Notes on Lakatos.” In Buck and Cohe. (1971). Pages 137-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. (eds.). (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. (1970). “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Lakatoa and Musgrav. (1970). Pages 91-195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan. (1971). “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In Buck and Cohe. (1971). Pages 91-135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, Larry. (1977). Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. (1970). “The History and Philosophy of Science: A Taxonomy.” In Historical and Philosophical Perspectives of Science. (Minnesota Studies in Philosophy of Science. Volume V.) Edited by Stuewer, Roger. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Pages 12–67.Google Scholar
Suppe, Frederick. (ed.). (1977). The Structure of Scientific Theories. 2nd ed. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Wykstra, Stephen. (1980). “Toward a Historical Meta-method for Assessing Normative Methodologies: Serendipity, Rationability, and the Robinson Crusoe Fallacy.” In PSA 1980. Volume 1. Edited by Asquith, P.D. and Giere, R.N.. East Lansing, Michigan: Philosophy of Science Association. Pages 211–223.Google Scholar