Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T21:26:38.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2022

Imre Lakatos
Imre Lakatos*
Affiliation:
London School of Economics
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

“Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind”. Taking its cue from this paraphrase of Kant's famous dictum, this paper intends to explain how the historiography of science should learn from the philosophy of science and vice versa. It will be argued that (a) philosophy of science provides normative methodologies in terms of which the historian reconstructs ‘internal history’ and thereby provides a rational explanation of the growth of objective knowledge; (b) two competing methodologies can be evaluated with the help of (normatively interpreted) history; (c) any rational reconstruction of history needs to be supplemented by an empirical (socio-psychological) ‘external history’.

The vital demarcation between normative-internal and empirical-external is different for each methodology. Jointly, internal and external historiographical theories determine to a very large extent the choice of problems for the historian.

Type
Symposium: History of Science and Its Rational Reconstruction
Information
PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association , Volume 1970 , 1970 , pp. 91 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1970

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.)

Footnotes

*

The notes are to be found on pp. 122-34. It is to be regretted that they could not be printed at the foot of each page, because they form an integral part of the paper (Ed.).

References

Agassi, J. (1963), Towards an Historiography of Science.Google Scholar
Agassi, J. (1964), ‘Scientific Problems and their Roots in Metaphysics’, in The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy (ed. by Bunge, M.), pp. 189–211.Google Scholar
Agassi, J. (1966), ‘Sensationalism’, Mind 75, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. (1969), ‘Popper on Learning from Experience’, in Studies in the Philosophy of Science (ed. by Rescher, N.), pp. 162-71.Google Scholar
Bernal, J. D. (1954), Science in History, 1st Edition.Google Scholar
Bernal, J. D. (1965), Science in History, 3rd Edition.Google Scholar
Beveridge, W. (1937), “The Place of the Social Sciences in Human Knowledge’, Politico 2, 459–79.Google Scholar
Cantor, G. (1971), ‘A Further Appraisal of the Young-Brougham Controversy’, in Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Cohen, I. B. (1960), The Birth of a New Physics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Compton, A. H. (1919), ‘The Size and Shape of the Electron’, Physical Review 14, 20–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P. (1905), La théorie physique, son objet et sa structure (English transl. of 2nd (1914) edition: The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, 1954).Google Scholar
Elkana, Y. (1971), ‘The Conservation of Energy: a Case of Simultaneous Discovery?’, Archives Internationales d'Histoire des Sciences 24, 31–60.Google Scholar
Ewald, P. (1969), ‘The Myth of Myths’, Archive for the History of Exact Science 6, 72–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1964), ‘Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments on the Logic of Factual Support’, in The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy (ed. by Bunge, M.), pp. 280–308.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1965), ‘Reply to Criticism’, in Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 2 (ed. by Cohen, R. S. and Wartofsky, M.), pp. 223-61.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1969), ‘A Note on Two “Problems” of Induction’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 19, 251-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1970a), ‘Consolations for the Specialist’, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 197–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1970b), ‘Against Method’, in Minnesota Studies for the Philosophy of Science 4.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. (1971), Against Method [expanded version of Feyerabend (1970b)].Google Scholar
Forman, P. (1969), ‘The Discovery of the Diffraction of X-Rays by Crystals: A Critique of the Critique of the Myths’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 6, 38–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, R. J. (1970), ‘Kuhn and the Copernican Revolution’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21, 196–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1937), Review of Popper (1934), Deutsche Literaturzeitung, pp. 309-14.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (1969), ‘Einstein, Michelson, and the “Crucial” Experiment’, Isis 6, 133-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1957), The Copernican Revolution.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1968), ‘Science: The History of Science’, in International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences (ed. by Sills, D. L.), Vol. 14, pp. 74–83.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970), ‘Reflections on my Critics’, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 237-78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1962), ‘Infinite Regress and the Foundations of Mathematics’, Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 36, 155–84.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1963-4), ‘Proofs and Refutations’, The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 14, 1–25, 120-39, 221-43, 296-342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1966), ‘Popkin on Skepticism’, in Logic, Physics and History (ed. by Yourgrau, W. and Breck, A. D.), 1970, pp. 220-3.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1967), ‘A Renaissance of Empiricism in the Recent Philosophy of Mathematics’, in Problems in the Philosophy of Mathematics (ed. by Lakatos, I.), pp. 199–202.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1968a), ‘Changes in the Problem of Inductive Logic’, in The Problem of Inductive Logic (ed. by Lakatos, I.), pp. 315–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1968b), ‘Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 69, 149–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1970), ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1971a), ‘Popper on Demarcation and Induction’ in The Philosophy of Sir Karl Popper (ed. by Schilpp, P. A.), forthcoming. (Available in German in Neue Aspekte der Wissenschaftstheorie ed. by Lenk, H..)Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1971b), ‘A Note on the Historiography of the Coperaican Revolution’, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1972), The Changing Logic of Scientific Discovery, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (1970), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullin, E. (1970), ‘The History and Philosophy of Science: a Taxonomy’, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 5, 12–67.Google Scholar
Merton, R. (1957), ‘Priorities in Scientific Discovery’, American Sociological Review 22, 635–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. (1963), ‘Resistance to the Systematic Study of Multiple Discoveries in Science’, European Journal of Sociology 4, 237-82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Merton, R. (1969), ‘Behaviour Patterns of Scientists’, American Scholar 38, 197–225.Google Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1969), Impersonal Knowledge: A Criticism of Subjectivism, Ph. D. thesis, University of London.Google Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1971a), ‘The Objectivism of Popper’s Epistemology’, in The Philosophy of Sir Karl Popper (ed. by Schilpp, P. A.), forthcoming.Google Scholar
Musgrave, A. (1971b), ‘Kuhn’s Second Thoughts’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22, pp. 287-97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1951), The Logic of Liberty.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1958), Personal Knowledge, Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1935), Logik der Forschung.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1940), ‘What is Dialectic?’, Mind 49, 403–26. reprinted in Popper (1963), pp. 312-35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1945), The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. I—II.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1948), ‘Naturgesetze und theoretische Systeme’, in Gesetz und Wirklichkeit, (ed. by Moser, S.), pp. 65–84.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1963), “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge’, in Contemporary British Philosophy (ed. by Lewis, H.D.), 1957, pp. 355-88; reprinted in Popper (1963), pp. 97-119.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1957a), ‘The Aim of Science’, Ratio 1, 24–35.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1957b), The Poverty of Historicism.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1959), The Logic of Scientific Discovery.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1960), ‘Philosophy and Physics’, Atti del XII Congresso Internazionale di Filosofia 2, 363–74.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1961), ‘Facts, Standards, and Truth: A Further Criticism of Relativism’, Addendum to the Fourth Edition of Popper (1945).Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1963a), Conjectures and Refutations.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1963b), ‘Science: Problems, Aims, Responsibilities’, Federation Proceedings 22, 961-72.Google ScholarPubMed
Popper, K. R. (1968a), ‘Epistemology Without a Knowing Subject’, in Proceedings of the Third International Congress for Logic, Methodology and Philosophy of Science (ed. by Rootselaar, B. and Staal, J.), Amsterdam, pp. 333-73.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. (1968b), ‘On the Theory of the Objective Mind’, in Proceedings of the XIV International Congress of Philosophy, Vol. 1, pp. 25–33.Google Scholar
Price, D. J. (1959), ‘Contra Copernicus: A Critical Re-estimation of the Mathematical Planetary Theory of Ptolemy, Copernicus and Kepler’, in Critical Problems in the History of Science (ed. by Clagett, M.), pp. 197–218.Google Scholar
Priestley, J. B. (1968), The Image Men.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1967), Science and Subjectivity.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1964), ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, Philosophical Review, 383-84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapere, S. (1967), ‘Meaning and Scientific Change’, in Mind and Cosmos (ed. by Colodny, R. G.), pp. 41–85.Google Scholar
Van der Waerden, B. (1967), Sources of Quantum Mechanics.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. (1952), ‘Political Tradition and Political Theory: an Examination of Professor Oakeshott’s Political Philosophy’, Philosophical Quarterly 2, 323–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. (1958), ‘Influential and Confirmable Metaphysics’, Mind 67, 344-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. (1963), ‘Negative Utilitarianism’, Aristotelian Society Supplementary 37, 95–114.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. (1967), ‘Decision and Belief’, in Decision Making (ed. by Hughes), R., pp. 9–26.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. W. N. (1970), ‘Against Normal Science’, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 25–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, L. P. (1970), ‘Normal Science and its Dangers’, in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (ed. by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A.), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar