GameOver22 said:
I've read both....and more : ) Personally, I think its complicated. I don't think either Popper or Kuhn got it entirely right, but they both hit on some important points, especially in regards to the role of falsification in science. I never read him in depth, but I actually like Lakatos more than Kuhn. I think he was one of Kuhn's students. |
Yeah. I'm studying at my university's Department of History and Philosophy of Science which is exactly about this.
I really dislike Lakatos's attempts to throw a bunch of words at the problem. I don't think science can be described with a written definition or method. Scientists themselves tend not to read about it, so sometimes I feel all their work is wasted. Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend are the four main people we study to start with, and of course all of their arguments have flaws or counter-examples.
