Cited by 318Philosophy, Science, and HistoryPhilosophy and History of ScienceAcademic integrity and plagiarism

Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes

LAKATOS, IMRE·2014·Philosophy, Science, and History

Abstract

Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes - 1

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.4324/9780203802458-7

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • A theory that is never at risk of being wrong ultimately forfeits its status as a scientifically informative framework.

    “a theory that is never at risk of being wrong ultimately forfeits its status as a scientifically informative framework (Lakatos 2014).”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Lakatos 2014

  • A framework that can explain everything explains nothing in particular.

    “A framework that can explain everything, after all, explains nothing in particular (Lakatos 2014; Popper 2002).”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Lakatos 2014

  • Research programs that continually accommodate counterevidence by adjusting auxiliary assumptions may become degenerative rather than progressive.

    “As the philosopher of science Lakatos (2014) argued, research programs that continually accommodate counterevidence by adjusting auxiliary assumptions may become degenerative rather than progressive.”

    From The myth of the Bayesian brain (2025) · cites this paper as Lakatos 2014

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LAKATOS, I.
Corresponding author
LAKATOS, IMRE
Venue
Philosophy, Science, and History
Publisher
Routledge
Published
2014-06-27
Pages
89-94
OpenAlex
W4236797681
Cited by
318
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 36 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 9 · 2012: 5
FWCI
155.03
Type
book chapter
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Routledge 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 › Safety Research › Academic integrity and plagiarism
Keywords
falsification, scientific research programs, methodology of science, Karl Popper, philosophy of science, research programs

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