ラカトシュ・イムレ

索引トップ用語の索引ランキングカテゴリー

出典: フリー百科事典『ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 (2024/02/27 09:00 UTC 版)

歴史編集のリサーチプログラム

1973年の小論「科学史とその合理的再構成(History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions)」^[18] で、ラカトシュは科学的方法の様々な理論を評価するための弁証法的・歴史編集的なメタ-方法を提言している。具体的には、一方では実際の科学史と科学革命を説明する上で、もう一方では筋の通らないとりとめのない情報の集まりにすぎないものより以上のものとして科学史を合理的に再構成するための歴史編集的な枠組みを与える上で、成功したかどうかを比較するという方法によって科学的方法の理論が評価される。小論は「科学史を欠く科学哲学は形ばかりのものであって実質的内容がない。哲学を欠く科学史は具体的事例に拘泥するばかりで展望がない(Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind.)」という有名な言明で始まっている。

とはいってもラカトシュ自身も彼の共同研究者も、あらゆるラカトシュの基準―あるプログラムが新しい事実を予測することに成功しているなら一方でそれに競合するプログラムは退行している―が満足されるまさにその時に科学革命の中で科学者の社会のうち大多数が変わっていくことを示すことによって上の言明の前半を立証することに今まで成功していない。実際、1970年の歴史的事例研究「批判主義と科学的リサーチプログラムの方法論(Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes)」において彼は公然と「この論文で私の言いたかいことは、歴史性をゆるがせにせず実際の歴史と合理的な再考性を比較することの第二段階に真剣に突き進むことだ」といったことを述べている。

脚注

^ See Lakatos's 5 Jan 1971 letter to Paul Feyerabend p233-4 in Motterlini's 1999 For and Against Method
^ These were respectively Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences: The Critical Background to Modern Science 1800-1905 Colin Howson (Ed)and Method and Appraisal in Economics Spiro J. Latsis (Ed)
^ Poincaré, H. (1893). "Sur la Généralisation d'un Théorème d'Euler relatif aux Polyèdres", Comptes Redus de Seances de l'Academie des Sciences, 117 p. 144, as cited in Lakatos, Worrall and Zahar, p. 162
^ Lakatos, Worrall and Zahar (1976), Proofs and Refutations ISBN 0-521-21078-X, pp. 106-126, note that Poincaré's formal proof (1899) "Complèment à l'Analysis Situs", Rediconti del Circolo Matematico di Palermo, 13, pp. 285-343, rewrites Euler's conjecture into a tautology of vector algebra^{[要曖昧さ回避]}.
^ K R Popper (1972), Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach (at page 200).
^ Lakatos, Musgrave ed. (1970), Pg. 130
^ As an added complication he further differentiates between empirical and theoretical progressiveness. Theoretical progressiveness is if the new 'theory has more empirical content then the old. Empirical progressiveness is if some of this content is corroborated. (Lakatos ed., 1970, P.118)
^ See/hear Lakatos's 1973 Open University BBC Radio talk Science and Pseudoscience at his LSE website @ www.lse.ac.uk/lakatos
^ Lakatos notably only condemned specifically Soviet Marxism as pseudoscientific, as opposed to Marxism in general. In fact at the very end of his very last LSE lectures on Scientific Method in 1973, he finished by posing the question of whether Trotsky's theoretical development of Marxism was scientific, and commented that "Nobody has ever undertaken a critical history of Marxism with the aid of better methodological and historiographical instruments. Nobody has ever tried to find an answer to questions like: were Trotsky's unorthodox predictions simply patching up a badly degenerating programme, or did they represent a creative development of Marx's programme ? To answer similar questions, we would really need a detailed analysis which takes years of work. So I simply do not know the answer, even if I am very interested in it."[p109 Motterlini 1999] However, in his 1976 On the Critique of Scientific Reason Feyerabend claimed Lenin's development of Marxism in his auxiliary theory of colonial exploitation had been 'Lakatos scientific' because it was "accompanied by a wealth of novel predictions (the arrival and structure of monopolies being one of them)." And he continued by claiming both Rosa Luxemburg's and Trotsky's developments of Marxism were close to what Lakatos regarded as scientific: "And whoever has read Rosa Luxemburg's reply to Bernstein's criticism of Marx or Trotsky's account of why the Russian Revolution took place in a backward country (cf also Lenin [1968], vol 19, pp99ff.) will see that Marxists are pretty close to what Lakatos would like any upstanding rationalist to do..." [See footnote 9, p315 of Howson (Ed) 1976]
^ Published in For and Against Method: Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend Motterlini (Ed) University of Chicago Press 1999
^ Situational Determinism in Economics S.J Latsis The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 23, p207-45. As Editor of the Journal Lakatos had been primarily responsible for its contents since August 1971.
^ Lakatos’s LSE colleague, the econometrician and now Labour parliamentary peer Baron Meghnad Desai, evaluated Marxian economics as a progressive scientific research programme in both his 1974 Marxian Economics and its 1979 second edition. But he did not identify any successfully predicted novel fact(s) that had rendered it progressive science. However, in 1976 Feyerabend claimed that contrary to John Worrall's 1975 repetition of Lakatos's claim that Marxism's auxiliary hypotheses to eliminate refuting instances were not content increasing, that in fact such as its theory of imperialism and colonial exploitation to explain the apparent refutation of its law of the falling rate of profit was "accompanied by a wealth of novel predictions (the arrival and structure of monopolies being one of them.)", and which Feyerabend apparently regarded as having been confirmed.(See p315 and its notes 8 & 9 of Feyerabend’s On the Critique of Scientific Reason in Howson's 1976 Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences.)
^ His 6 December 1972 letter is held in Folder 36 of Box 29 of the Hoover Institution Archives' Milton Friedman Papers at Stanford University, created by Friedman and his wife in 1992. This Folder also contains a two-page reply to Friedman's letter by Latsis dated 27 January 1973
^ Lakatos's 2 February 1973 letter of invitation is held in Folder 32 of Box 29.
^ Nobel Prize Committee Press Release announcing Milton Friedman as the 1976 winner https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/1976/press-release/
^ Friedman Lecture http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1976/friedman-lecture.pdf
^ ^a ^b Brian Snowdon, Howard R. Vane Modern macroeconomics: its origins, development and current state Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005 p 182
^
- Lakatos, Imre. (1970). History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. http://www.jstor.org/stable/495757
^ See How to Defend Society Against Science
^ Paul Feyerabend (1978). Science in a Free Society. London: NLB. ISBN 0860910083
^ 高橋憲一「科学史家にとってリサーーチ・プログラム論とは何か」『比較社会文化』第5号、九州大学大学院比較社会文化研究科、1999年、27-39頁、CRID 1390290699812405120、doi:10.15017/8614、hdl:2324/8614。