Imre Lakatos: Is philosophy of science possible without history of science?

Imre Lakatos, whom we can argue occupies a privileged position among twentieth-century philosophers of science in terms of his approach to the subject, emphasizes the importance of a good understanding of the history of science in his work, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs, by presenting his views on the path to be followed in distinguishing between science and non-science. Inspired by Immanuel Kant’s statement, “Concepts without intuitions are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind,” Lakatos clearly presents his approach with the saying, “The philosophy of science without the history of science is empty, and the history of science without the philosophy of science is blind,” and then turns to examining how scientific development occurs. Participating in the debates between Karl Raimund Popper and Thomas Samuel Kuhn during his lifetime, the philosopher, aiming to find a middle ground, first criticizes Popper’s idea of falsificationism, and then attempts to resolve the crisis of scientific rationality by showing the flaws in Kuhn’s proposed conception of history. Starting with an evaluation of falsificationism, Lakatos identifies three types: “dogmatic, methodological, and sophisticated falsificationism.” Dogmatic falsificationism, which rejects the transfer of empirical certainty to theories, is the weakest type of verificationism. Methodological falsificationism becomes understandable in relation to conventionalism. Sophisticated falsificationism, on the other hand, is a type aimed at saving theory. Furthermore, Lakatos proposes the idea of a “scientific research program” as an alternative to Kuhn’s concept of paradigm. In this context, the philosopher brings a new perspective to the philosophy of science. In this thesis, Lakatos’s views will be examined, focusing on his book, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs. Thus, the development of the history and philosophy of science will be unfolded through Lakatos’s understanding.