This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've added the comment about informal mathematics, because I'm sure that Lakatos wasn't claiming that 'formal proofs don't prove'. The Euler characteristic example was capped off by a formal proof.
Charles Matthews 18:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In a couple of limited senses, I think that Lakatos was claiming that 'formal proofs don't prove' - or at least not infallibly. In the first sense, a formal proof may simply misrepresent (or, perhaps better, mistranslate) important aspects of the informal problem - the proof is still formally valid, but fails to refer correctly. In the second sense, it's in principle possible that what counts as a formal proof could change (effectively, a change in the underlying logic) - though I think that, for Lakatos, this was very much expected to be only in principle. -- PWilkinson 18:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have done a major overhaul of this section because some of it was just incorrect and some was confused. I have tryed to explain the ideas best I can. Hope I have done O.K. My main ref's have been. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge a collection of works edited by Lakatos and including a paper by him (Falsification and the meathodology of research programs) and Brendan Larvour's Lakatos: An Introduction. -- JK the unwise 15:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not that happy about the first paragraph of this section. The real conflict I think is between Popper's falsification point of view, and the fact that in the real world falsification of an element of a paradigm most often leads to suitable adjustments being made so as to bring theory and experiment back into concordance. So Kuhn's theories are of no great relevance; it isn't a question of incompatibility between Popper and Kuhn, but between Popper and how science is actually done (in its non-revolutionary phase). Do people agree (I'm not an expert in this field)? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
1. Regarding 'Normal science' qualification, not sure I get u. Are u saying that what I have said is correct? But that the noraml science qualification should only go in if the explaination of why this is so also goes in? Would this not make it so that there would be to much info' on Kuhn in this page? Should people not go to
Kuhn page to read about him?
2. While I don't presume the new version is perfect (and have just edited it some more to make it more simple) I don't agree with your comments about structure. Here is how I see it.
Old structure:
(4,5 didn't really adress 1,2,3 clearly in my opinion)
New structure:
Hope you get some time to have a think about this soon. JK the unwise 10:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I have found a Firefox spell cheacker add on thingy, thanks for the tip)
Negative and positive heuristics are discussed in para 7 of this section, so the sentence can go. I have replaced it with a short discussion of progressive and degenerative research programs. The only problem is that the same stuff is handled later on in the same section! As I read it at the moment what I have written is repeating what is already said rather than anticipating it. Would it be worth bringing them together? Chris 21:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Thomas Kuhn was so popular during the 60's that people attended his lectures in adjacent lecture theatres listening to him via a sound system. Ergo, it was as if God was speaking, for they could not see anyone." Is it me, or does that last line not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia?-- The Individual 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, not only is it at odds with encylopedic style, its also out of place in that paragraph and irrelevant to the article as a whole.--
Blargly14:38, 25 January 2007
... from anyone who watches/has contributed to this article. I just made this addition to the article on Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Theory&diff=prev&oldid=171922842 - I'd appreciate it if people would go over it, make any necessry edits to correct or clarify it or just to improve the style. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:ILakatos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't understand the following under the Research Programmes section:
"...though many commentators believe that Popper2 just is Lakatos."
I've not read enough Lakatos to come across Popper1, 2 and 3 yet, but I wonder from the above if it is meant that Lakatos expounded a philosophy, Popper2, and attributed it to the Popper himself, only to be accused of doing what the exponents of Popper1 did. That is to say Popper2 is also a philosophy that exists "only in the minds of critics".
If that is what we want to say it needs to be both clarified and attributed to someone.
I would also risk cutting the remainder of the paragraph which reads,
For two reasons. The first sentence outlines what has already been explained reasonably well only for the purpose of marking it as a 'major contribution'. I don't disagree that Lakatos contributions to phil. sci. were considerable, but I would prefer to make that self evident by instead enumerating the people he influenced, the controversies he sparked and whatever else it is that makes his contribution 'major'.
And lastly, I read all the way down to "Whether it was Popper's idea or Lakatos [...] is of less importance". Are we suggesting that Research Programmes could reasonably be attributed to Popper rather than Lakatos? The tone of the sentence suggests we are dismissing a controversy. Is that what should be inferred? -- ChrisSteinbach ( talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Clean-up: removed RedHouse18's comments requiring citations. They were valid comments, but have now been addressed in the article. -- winterstein ( talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph because, in it's current form, it detracts from the quality of the article. The following minor flaws should be easy to fix: (a) it presents a defence of Friedman, but opens with a misleading sentence which suggests Snowdon & Vane's 2005 comments were of the time and were critical, (b) it uses a reference (Snowdon, Vane 2005) to summary comments rather than direct citations. A more major flaw is whether Snowden, Vane 2005 is notable & solid enough to be cited alongside the other sources of this section -- primary evidence from Lakatos & Friedman, & the Nobel committee's press release -- without a gloss on the relative strength of sources. -- winterstein ( talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
After having read Lakatos' 'Science and Pseudoscience' talk transcript, I have had trouble finding anything he says that matches the claim in the Wikipedia article:
"a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories which at least predict some novel fact(s), whether or not they are confirmed.[8] Within the class of scientific theories, progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted."
Instead, Lakatos makes a few points that appear to indicate that he equates pseudoscientific with degenerate:
"But how can one distinguish a scientific or progressive programme from a pseudoscientific or degenerating one?"
"But if Kuhn is right, then there is no explicit demarcation between science and pseudoscience, no distinction between scientific progress and intellectual decay..."
Halfway through the transcript he stops using the term "pseudoscientific" and starts using "degenerate" and then the only criterion he seems to put forward is the prediction of novel and correct facts. Are you sure that Lakatos considered degenerate theories to be a subset of scientific ones? If so, I am not sure how that reference shows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyncanarvon ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, also, I checked out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and their take on things seems to conflict with ours: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
They write: "In his view, a research program is progressive if the new theories make surprising predictions that are confirmed. In contrast, a degenerating research programme is characterized by theories being fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts. Progress in science is only possible if a research program satisfies the minimum requirement that each new theory that is developed in the program has a larger empirical content than its predecessor. If a research program does not satisfy this requirement, then it is pseudoscientific."
I am thinking they might be correct. If no one objects, I will edit this section later this week to say that he equated degenerate with pseudoscientific. Let me know if you think I am wrong.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyncanarvon ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed you are wrong, at least on the textual evidence you cite, where Lakatos does not equate degenerating science with pseudoscience: the latter makes no novel predictions whatever as distinct from refuted novel predictions with degenerate science.
You quote Lakatos "But how can one distinguish a scientific or progressive programme from a pseudoscientific or degenerating one?" as evidence of a conflation of pseudoscience with degenerate science.
But he is clearly asking a question about two different distinctions, namely scientific vs pseudoscientific and progressive science vs degenerate science. The “or” does not denote two identicals, but rather 2 different alternatives in each case.
So I delete the mistaken insertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.13 ( talk) 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Imre Lakatos essentially equates Popper's World 3 with Frege's Third Realm - discussion of translations is on another talk page
"Frege's 'third realm' ('drittes Reich') and Popper's 'World 3' are alike in so far as they contain thought contents, mathematical objects and other abstracta" - from Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scientific Change, Frege and Popper, p 417.
There is a discussion about redirecting Dritte Reich away from Nazi Germany. Discussion is here. ParkSehJik ( talk) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Most of the section Imre_Lakatos#The_Milton_Friedman_neoclassical_economics_case_study reads like a coatrack whose main topic is not Lakatos at all, but Friedman and his theories. I'm planning to trim this down to 1-2 paragraphs, mostly based on the first 2 paragraphs of the section. After all, Lakatos was long dead by the time most of this happened. Perhaps some of this belongs in the neoclassical economics or pseudoscience articles? -- Macrakis ( talk) 12:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
“He changed his last name once again to Lakatos (Locksmith) in honor of Géza Lakatos.” Here “last name” should probably be changed to surname. Hungarians place their surname first. If you say “Lakatos Imre” and you mention “last name”, it sounds like you are talking about the last of those two names, namely Imre (actually a given name).-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 04:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Cause of death?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 04:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps these changes belong on an LSE page? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imre Lakatos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is a list of some sources I'm planning on using in hopes of adding to the article. Would appreciate any advice or critiques about the appropriateness of these sources, etc.
Musgrave, Alan and Pigden, Charles, "Imre Lakatos", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/lakatos/>.
Great readings in clinical science : essential selections for mental health professionals. Lilienfeld, Scott O., 1960-, O'Donohue, William T. Boston: Pearson. 2012. ISBN 9780205698035. OCLC 720560483.
Losee, J. (2004). Theories of scientific progress : An introduction. New York: Routledge.
Gower, B. (1997). Scientific method : An historical and philosophical introduction. London ; New York: Routledge.
Bwoollard ( talk) 03:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The article states that during the occupation, Lakatos changed his name to Imre Molnár. On p.3 of Brendan Larvor's "Lakatos: An Introduction" (Routledge, 2013), it says he assumed the name Tibor Molnár. See: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=X80rBgAAQBAJ&q=tibor#v=snippet&q=tibor&f=false Which is correct? Does anyone have a definitive reference? George963 au ( talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of fact the very connection beteeen the two philosophers lies in their common origin, both jews snd both hungarians (as like as george Soros). Lakatos was yes a popperian follower but with more attention toward thomas kuhn and feyerabend. His sadly dead so young stopped his further research in epistemology field Feltribamba ( talk) 11:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've added the comment about informal mathematics, because I'm sure that Lakatos wasn't claiming that 'formal proofs don't prove'. The Euler characteristic example was capped off by a formal proof.
Charles Matthews 18:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
In a couple of limited senses, I think that Lakatos was claiming that 'formal proofs don't prove' - or at least not infallibly. In the first sense, a formal proof may simply misrepresent (or, perhaps better, mistranslate) important aspects of the informal problem - the proof is still formally valid, but fails to refer correctly. In the second sense, it's in principle possible that what counts as a formal proof could change (effectively, a change in the underlying logic) - though I think that, for Lakatos, this was very much expected to be only in principle. -- PWilkinson 18:49, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I have done a major overhaul of this section because some of it was just incorrect and some was confused. I have tryed to explain the ideas best I can. Hope I have done O.K. My main ref's have been. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge a collection of works edited by Lakatos and including a paper by him (Falsification and the meathodology of research programs) and Brendan Larvour's Lakatos: An Introduction. -- JK the unwise 15:16, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I'm not that happy about the first paragraph of this section. The real conflict I think is between Popper's falsification point of view, and the fact that in the real world falsification of an element of a paradigm most often leads to suitable adjustments being made so as to bring theory and experiment back into concordance. So Kuhn's theories are of no great relevance; it isn't a question of incompatibility between Popper and Kuhn, but between Popper and how science is actually done (in its non-revolutionary phase). Do people agree (I'm not an expert in this field)? -- Brian Josephson ( talk) 17:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
1. Regarding 'Normal science' qualification, not sure I get u. Are u saying that what I have said is correct? But that the noraml science qualification should only go in if the explaination of why this is so also goes in? Would this not make it so that there would be to much info' on Kuhn in this page? Should people not go to
Kuhn page to read about him?
2. While I don't presume the new version is perfect (and have just edited it some more to make it more simple) I don't agree with your comments about structure. Here is how I see it.
Old structure:
(4,5 didn't really adress 1,2,3 clearly in my opinion)
New structure:
Hope you get some time to have a think about this soon. JK the unwise 10:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) (P.S. I have found a Firefox spell cheacker add on thingy, thanks for the tip)
Negative and positive heuristics are discussed in para 7 of this section, so the sentence can go. I have replaced it with a short discussion of progressive and degenerative research programs. The only problem is that the same stuff is handled later on in the same section! As I read it at the moment what I have written is repeating what is already said rather than anticipating it. Would it be worth bringing them together? Chris 21:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"Thomas Kuhn was so popular during the 60's that people attended his lectures in adjacent lecture theatres listening to him via a sound system. Ergo, it was as if God was speaking, for they could not see anyone." Is it me, or does that last line not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia?-- The Individual 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
You're correct, not only is it at odds with encylopedic style, its also out of place in that paragraph and irrelevant to the article as a whole.--
Blargly14:38, 25 January 2007
... from anyone who watches/has contributed to this article. I just made this addition to the article on Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Theory&diff=prev&oldid=171922842 - I'd appreciate it if people would go over it, make any necessry edits to correct or clarify it or just to improve the style. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:ILakatos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot ( talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't understand the following under the Research Programmes section:
"...though many commentators believe that Popper2 just is Lakatos."
I've not read enough Lakatos to come across Popper1, 2 and 3 yet, but I wonder from the above if it is meant that Lakatos expounded a philosophy, Popper2, and attributed it to the Popper himself, only to be accused of doing what the exponents of Popper1 did. That is to say Popper2 is also a philosophy that exists "only in the minds of critics".
If that is what we want to say it needs to be both clarified and attributed to someone.
I would also risk cutting the remainder of the paragraph which reads,
For two reasons. The first sentence outlines what has already been explained reasonably well only for the purpose of marking it as a 'major contribution'. I don't disagree that Lakatos contributions to phil. sci. were considerable, but I would prefer to make that self evident by instead enumerating the people he influenced, the controversies he sparked and whatever else it is that makes his contribution 'major'.
And lastly, I read all the way down to "Whether it was Popper's idea or Lakatos [...] is of less importance". Are we suggesting that Research Programmes could reasonably be attributed to Popper rather than Lakatos? The tone of the sentence suggests we are dismissing a controversy. Is that what should be inferred? -- ChrisSteinbach ( talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Clean-up: removed RedHouse18's comments requiring citations. They were valid comments, but have now been addressed in the article. -- winterstein ( talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I have removed the following paragraph because, in it's current form, it detracts from the quality of the article. The following minor flaws should be easy to fix: (a) it presents a defence of Friedman, but opens with a misleading sentence which suggests Snowdon & Vane's 2005 comments were of the time and were critical, (b) it uses a reference (Snowdon, Vane 2005) to summary comments rather than direct citations. A more major flaw is whether Snowden, Vane 2005 is notable & solid enough to be cited alongside the other sources of this section -- primary evidence from Lakatos & Friedman, & the Nobel committee's press release -- without a gloss on the relative strength of sources. -- winterstein ( talk) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
After having read Lakatos' 'Science and Pseudoscience' talk transcript, I have had trouble finding anything he says that matches the claim in the Wikipedia article:
"a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories which at least predict some novel fact(s), whether or not they are confirmed.[8] Within the class of scientific theories, progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted."
Instead, Lakatos makes a few points that appear to indicate that he equates pseudoscientific with degenerate:
"But how can one distinguish a scientific or progressive programme from a pseudoscientific or degenerating one?"
"But if Kuhn is right, then there is no explicit demarcation between science and pseudoscience, no distinction between scientific progress and intellectual decay..."
Halfway through the transcript he stops using the term "pseudoscientific" and starts using "degenerate" and then the only criterion he seems to put forward is the prediction of novel and correct facts. Are you sure that Lakatos considered degenerate theories to be a subset of scientific ones? If so, I am not sure how that reference shows it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyncanarvon ( talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh, also, I checked out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and their take on things seems to conflict with ours: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pseudo-science/
They write: "In his view, a research program is progressive if the new theories make surprising predictions that are confirmed. In contrast, a degenerating research programme is characterized by theories being fabricated only in order to accommodate known facts. Progress in science is only possible if a research program satisfies the minimum requirement that each new theory that is developed in the program has a larger empirical content than its predecessor. If a research program does not satisfy this requirement, then it is pseudoscientific."
I am thinking they might be correct. If no one objects, I will edit this section later this week to say that he equated degenerate with pseudoscientific. Let me know if you think I am wrong.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyncanarvon ( talk • contribs) 10:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Indeed you are wrong, at least on the textual evidence you cite, where Lakatos does not equate degenerating science with pseudoscience: the latter makes no novel predictions whatever as distinct from refuted novel predictions with degenerate science.
You quote Lakatos "But how can one distinguish a scientific or progressive programme from a pseudoscientific or degenerating one?" as evidence of a conflation of pseudoscience with degenerate science.
But he is clearly asking a question about two different distinctions, namely scientific vs pseudoscientific and progressive science vs degenerate science. The “or” does not denote two identicals, but rather 2 different alternatives in each case.
So I delete the mistaken insertion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.133.13 ( talk) 16:35, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Imre Lakatos essentially equates Popper's World 3 with Frege's Third Realm - discussion of translations is on another talk page
"Frege's 'third realm' ('drittes Reich') and Popper's 'World 3' are alike in so far as they contain thought contents, mathematical objects and other abstracta" - from Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scientific Change, Frege and Popper, p 417.
There is a discussion about redirecting Dritte Reich away from Nazi Germany. Discussion is here. ParkSehJik ( talk) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Most of the section Imre_Lakatos#The_Milton_Friedman_neoclassical_economics_case_study reads like a coatrack whose main topic is not Lakatos at all, but Friedman and his theories. I'm planning to trim this down to 1-2 paragraphs, mostly based on the first 2 paragraphs of the section. After all, Lakatos was long dead by the time most of this happened. Perhaps some of this belongs in the neoclassical economics or pseudoscience articles? -- Macrakis ( talk) 12:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
“He changed his last name once again to Lakatos (Locksmith) in honor of Géza Lakatos.” Here “last name” should probably be changed to surname. Hungarians place their surname first. If you say “Lakatos Imre” and you mention “last name”, it sounds like you are talking about the last of those two names, namely Imre (actually a given name).-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 04:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Cause of death?-- Solomonfromfinland ( talk) 04:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps these changes belong on an LSE page? -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imre Lakatos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is a list of some sources I'm planning on using in hopes of adding to the article. Would appreciate any advice or critiques about the appropriateness of these sources, etc.
Musgrave, Alan and Pigden, Charles, "Imre Lakatos", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = < https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/lakatos/>.
Great readings in clinical science : essential selections for mental health professionals. Lilienfeld, Scott O., 1960-, O'Donohue, William T. Boston: Pearson. 2012. ISBN 9780205698035. OCLC 720560483.
Losee, J. (2004). Theories of scientific progress : An introduction. New York: Routledge.
Gower, B. (1997). Scientific method : An historical and philosophical introduction. London ; New York: Routledge.
Bwoollard ( talk) 03:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
The article states that during the occupation, Lakatos changed his name to Imre Molnár. On p.3 of Brendan Larvor's "Lakatos: An Introduction" (Routledge, 2013), it says he assumed the name Tibor Molnár. See: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=X80rBgAAQBAJ&q=tibor#v=snippet&q=tibor&f=false Which is correct? Does anyone have a definitive reference? George963 au ( talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
As a matter of fact the very connection beteeen the two philosophers lies in their common origin, both jews snd both hungarians (as like as george Soros). Lakatos was yes a popperian follower but with more attention toward thomas kuhn and feyerabend. His sadly dead so young stopped his further research in epistemology field Feltribamba ( talk) 11:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)