Cited by 3,915Philosophy, Science, and HistoryPhilosophy and History of ScienceEpistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics

Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes

Lakatos, Imre·1976·Can Theories be Refuted?

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/978-94-010-1863-0_14

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Ascribing unfavourable outcomes to auxiliary hypotheses rather than core theory is rational behaviour that may precipitate important theoretical developments and empirical discoveries.

    “indeed, this is perfectly rational behaviour which may precipitate important theoretical developments and empirical discoveries”
  • Successive failures to accrue evidence in favour of AI-C would be indicative of a 'degenerating' research programme and reason to pursue alternative theories more vigorously.

    “This being said, successive failures to accrue evidence in favour of the theory would be indicative of a 'degenerating' research programme (i.e., one that requires multiple updates to account for existing data, yet which fail to deliver novel insights or predictions that are subsequently corroborated; Lakatos, 1976) -and reason to pursue alternative theories more vigorously”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lakatos, I.
Corresponding author
Lakatos, Imre
Venue
Can Theories be Refuted?
Published
1976
Pages
205-259
OpenAlex
W1582174699
Cited by
3,915
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 94 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 84 · 2018: 70 · 2017: 84 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 100 · 2014: 121 · 2013: 138 · 2012: 134
FWCI
214.53
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Springer eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy, Science, and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics
Keywords
falsification, scientific research programs, methodology of science, consensus, logical positivism, skepticism, scientific knowledge, philosophy of science

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review