Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes* nin Sel ef eon 1 Seice eto reigd 2 Fallin ter fain, (e) Dogs or natura faifetionion. The epic bs (@) Methods fication. Tha empirical bai (©) Sophiniated caret aie fain. Proreize and dgeur- ‘tng proieulif. 1 A metodo of wine rvrch programmes (2) Negeive hres th harder ofthe programe. (0 Poste heart: the cmatracion of the ‘praective Blt and the latce exter of tort nce (9 Teo lair: Prot and Bab. (cl) Pret a resach programme prgrening in an cnn of anomai (2) Ble ran rgeme rari ex ot fad (@) A ne lo teal experiment: he nd of tan rational, (dt) Th Michlon- Morey exerimet (22) The Lene Pring experiment, (43) Beodacy cet cneratio es, (@4) Conc. The repurment of contin roth 44 The Popperian ears the. Kubon recarh programe, “Appentie: Popper, fication and the Duhem- Quine hi, 1. sousmea: neason on neLio1on? For centres knowlege meant proven knwldge—proven ether by the oer ofthe intl a bythe evidence ofthe eres, Wisdom andintelec- {ual integrity demanded that one mast dest frm anproven uiterances, and minimize, even in though, the gap between specltion and estab Tshed Knowledge. The proving power of the inlet or the senaca was “ap cae or eno. ln ce wen ot ‘hn ath Eira he Pras of ta Arn Soon. Inte egeton Xt new en fed mp frm Tat Boom Con Hows Ce ‘ei a de eho aneo ae LAKATOS ecient nn ond pt ey SCA ESN So goa aac St Sissi olin te aos oreo Ea Sau bere ea po fest ror sade rari ch nla Set ietate isis etaeraseg esate ono ca a Srbaryctec tee eae ay tte es Teste pen ve pe en ia ngs de tenia la ay Seen te ee ro pn witaster in eeudateoeity een a sn Siti hr Siacnotoe Snows ts icc de 32 Rye nee? iietnd hot Senate aimee pon gy wc ey See a ce ep Sele Cte ta ore ook cater arte nhs ray Siege legen SIFU Sitemeter ec Tih ene Hee en ia py selina ru ee poh Seer ea ae eae os sepero ba ee pes ioe pete id ne ne ies ae sce mene eine SLEDS re Gitte "raeeneens een "gcc cme eet td Kat, Fee the red fchgound wd tm fh pao, Mgr Caan crt name traremr eer ores art eae eee MaTHODOLOCY OF SCIENTIFIC HISEAKCH PROGRAMMES 93 from erica to commitment marks the point where proges—and “normal! ecience—beine. Fo hm the idea that on refttion’ ene cn demand the ejection, te elimination of theory, ‘av’ flat. ‘Cis of the dominat theory and proposals of new thavies ae aly sllowed in th rare moments of ris. This nt Khan thes fas bee, widely creed! and Tall nt seta i. My concern in ether that Kuh, having recognised the flue both of jutieatonirn and fle ‘ation in providing raonl account of sinc growth, seams now tol back om iain, For Popper sciente change atonal o at eat rina reconstruct ibe and falls inthe ram of the le of dicen. For Kuhn stent hunge—from one paradigm’ to another stil conversion which is not and canot be govemed by rules of reaton and which fal toll ‘thin the rea of the (cal peycolgy of deer. Slate change kindof elgious change. ‘The clah bermeen Popper and Kuhn isnot about 2 mere techie pein in epistemology. I concern our ental intelectual asad as impleton not only for theoretic phys but alo forthe underdeveloped sci sieces and even for moral and polities phlwophy. If even ia ‘Sece there ono eter way of Judging a theory but by meng the ‘number, uth and voeal energy of supprtery, then tht mst be even sore on the sce sien trate in power. This Kua’ pion indices, no doubt, usinteatoaly, the basic polieal edo of contem- ‘porary religions marines (student revolutionaries’ a ths peer ball fat show tht in Popper lope of eciente die cnvery two diferent postions ate conte. Kun understands only one of ches, ‘nave fication? (I prefer the ter ‘sive methodcogcl fasietonan’; tink that his cca of is comet, an T shal even sHeenghea But Kua doe not understand a mre vpbistted positon ‘he rationality of which snot bated on nave’ fast, Isa ty to explanand farther strengihen—thia wonger Popperian postion ‘whch think, may ecape Kuba sreurs and present lente rerehe ‘ona not sconsiting religious converdoeabut rahe ratinal proge, “Totes thecoficting the more ery, we hae to reconatruct the eo Tem situation at wa npllonophy ofeceneaferthebrekdown cl si= ation “According othe ‘usifcatonit? went heledge contd of fren NOt og: Waki nd Fen* Dene Laxaros repens, ving cecogazed that sratly lial deductions enable ws ‘aly to infer (cana rth) but ao ta prove estab rth, they die agreed sbout the nature of thon propeitions (xoms) whe tath can be ‘proved by extropeal mean. Clascal lets or atoalt in {he narrow seme ofthe ters) adited very vared—and powerfal—sorte of exuslogeal ‘ous by revelation, intellectual intuition, expevince "These, with the help of loge enabled them to prove every sot of eien- ‘ie proposition. Clic enprits cepted sis oly a relatvely tem tof acl propestios' which expesed the hard fact Thee ‘wathrale was esate by experience and they consiued the emp ‘al ba cece. In oder prove sciences fom voting ee ‘but the marrow expiil bat, they needed logic much more poverfl than the deductive logic ofthe casa iterate inductee’ Al jtfcatonst, whether intellects or empiicits, agreed that a Singular statement expressing “ard ac’ ay diprowea universal theory; ‘bt few of them thought tht a Saite conjunction of actual propositions ‘ight beeucet to proce indoctvel’ + usiverel theory Tostcaionisn, that by the ieniicion of knowlege with proven ‘knowledge, waste dominant tradition in rational thought trough he ages, Scepticnm dd not deny jaseatonem: i only claimed tht there ‘wut (and could be) no proven knowledge and thraere no knowledge ‘whasceer. Fer the septs “knowlege” was nothing but animal bebe. "Thus juticatinet sccpcm ridiculed cbjetve thought an opened the oor tieaonalam, myticiam, superstition. “This station explain the enorme for inveted by casi rational- {st in tying to sve he sytheta ir pencpe f nection an by dasicl empiric in trying tote the ceranty of an empirical bia and the vay of fndsctveinfereace. For al of them sete owe demanded hat ot art mtn tha is esrosn. However, bah were feted: Kantian by non-Bucidean geomery and by non-New ‘nina physic andempcite bythe lg imponalty of etblishing sn empirial bai es Kanan pointed et, facts cannot prove ropest= rie ply rd hin samt ter inset vite mats tn on en og Pept doen of fn oni {nF Rass ort oe ne lo ted hs mt ot td 9p ‘Soe inno ape’ ahr Feng Pops oe ota ere pre of uve pre (urea et ata pp) el LSS ag a ep cal pen a et etiovoLocY oF scxENTIFLE RESEAKCH PROGRAMMES 95 Si snd fling nnd pl (oy ree content) Tetuned ost that al thors are aul expo Prilsopers wee slow to recognize this, for evioutrenene claial ston feared tat once they conceded tat theoretealeience is ‘unprovable, they would have io to conclude that it sophistry and son, a dihonest fod The phileophice impartance of probabil or ‘nejtiectina’) sis the denial tt auch a concoion' neceary. Frobbilinm was elaborated by a group of Cambridge phluophers who though that although siete theaie ae equally unporable they have