I've been a big Kuhn fan for years. I thought I understood his ideas, too, until I read this book. This gem is a debate among some of the most interesting philosophers of science in the twentieth century-- all trying to make sense of Kuhn, most concluding that his ideas are deeply flawed.

The criticism helped me advance my own interpretation of Kuhn, but it was Kuhn's reply to the criticism that brought the whole thing into technicolor 3D. I could hardly have learned more if I had the man in my living room.

-- James

This is a collection of "essays" about T.S. Kuhn's distiction between normal science and revolutionary science. Various philosophers, including Karl Popper, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend, criticize various aspects of Kuhn's argument. Finally Kuhn presents a reply to his critics.

I am a layman with interest in philosophical concepts and how they can be applied to my own field of study. I am presenting this review as of interest to other layman and not of direct interest to professions in this field.

The above being said, I found this book to be a lucid and accessible introduction to the ideas of Lakatos. I would recommend it to anyone else who is in my position of trying to understand the philosophical space without an exhaustive philosophical background..

Larvor presents Lakatos ideas in an historical manner. He relates them to the ideas of Kuhn and Popper that they advanced. He shows their origin in Lakatos' personal background in Hegel and Marx. The connections to these other thinkers is made clear with their ideas as they relate to Lakatos work thoroughly explained. This connection provides and understanding of not only Lakatos' work in their context but of the broader scope of their ideas in philosophy.

I would recommend this book to anyone who like me would like to understand the ides brought forth in philosophical investigations but lacks a formal background. It is an excellent book for self-instruction. It provides a clear grounding that makes the reading of the books by these major thinkers much more worthwhile. I had read Lakatos, Kuhn and Popper before I read this book. This book greatly helped me by giving greater clarity to the ideas that I had found there and by making subtle but important issues that I had not understood sufficiently much clearer.

Philosophy of Science is a crucial subset of philosophy, since it directly affects scientific research. We need to know what constitutes a properly constructed theory, and more to the point, which claims are not theoretical, or perhaps not even scientific. With that goal established, we need to know how to empirically verify the theory in question. Theories are developed within axiomatic systems, are based on assumptions, and present us with a compact thesis, or a set of theses. A theory is scientific if we can falsify it with empirical data. If a theory is not testable, then it is not a good theory, since we cannot accept or reject its propositions. An obvious point is to be raised here - when and under which conditions shall we reject a theory?

Methodological studies flourished in the XX century with the works of Karl Popper, Milton Friedman, Imre Lakatos, Harold Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend and other philosophers. The contribution of Imre Lakatos was significant. With his version of corroboration and refined fascificationism we were able to apply new standards towards the methods of rejection of scientific theories. A single rejection of the scientific theory is not likely to falsify it, unlike advocated previously. However, the main point is that while the absolute truth is always of importance, i.e. whether a given theory is considered "true" because we have not been able to negatively falsify that theory; it is more important that various theories can be compared to each other, even if they are all imperfect. To this end, we can specify a set of thresholds, and say that a research programme A is more empirically valid than a research programme B if it does withstand a larger number of empirical tests. Of course, as simple as it sounds, it is a useful method of evaluation of theories, and can be augmented as needed within a given science.

Philosophy of Science and methodology is of utmost importance to theorists, since more often than not, nonscientific methods of theory construction are used, and even worse, empirical data are inductively used to hypothesize about the causes for the pattern of these data. It's methodologically invalid and by construction, these theories are not falsifiable since they are derived from data. This is true especially within economic theory; labor economics and macroeconomics in particular.

The works of Lakatos are summarized and condensed in various descriptive volumes on the Philosophy of Science, however it is illuminating to read the original works of this ingenious philosopher, since by doing so you gain an additional layer of understanding.

I will not go as far as saying that it should have been a must reading for any scientist, since such proposition would be hardly realistic, but I will say that it is a treat for those who have already tasted methodology in a compact form, and would like to expand their knowledge.

The author introduces the main lines of discussions in epistemeolgy and philosophy of mathematics in a very understandable but comphrehensive way. It is a brilliant reference book for the subject which also contains so-far unpublished articles of the author.

I want to add a few words to the brief comment by the reader in Monroe (who gave this book one star). I tend to agree that "Proofs and Refutations" isn't a primer in mathematical proof-writing; it's certainly not a textbook for beginning mathematicians wanting to know how to practice their craft.

However, for those readers (including beginning mathematicians) who are interested in the broader picture, who are interested in the nature of mathematical proof, then Lakatos is essential reading. The examples chosen are vivid, and there is a rich sense of historical context. The dramatised setting (with Teacher and students Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc) is handled skilfully. Now and then, a foolish-seeming comment from one of the students has a footnote tagged to it; more often than not, that student is standing in for Euler, Cauchy, Poincare or some other great mathematician from a past era, closely paraphrasing actual remarks made by them. That in some ways is the most important lesson I learned from this book; "obvious" now doesn't mean obvious then, even to the greatest intellects of the time.

Although "Proofs and Refuatations" is an easy book to begin reading, it is not an easy book per se. I have returned to it repeatedly over the last ten years, and I always learn something new. The text matures with the reader.

As a lay reader of mathematics, I am prone to read for more for analogy and thought methods instead of, for example, the real implications of variations on Eulers Formula: for any convex polyhedron, the number of vertices and faces together is exactly two more than the number of edges.

Displaying solid content with artful execution, this book interested me in both the math of the thing and the acompanying thought processes.

Content: This book has near-poetic density and elegance in arguing a non-linear approach to mathematical development and, for me, to just plain thinking. Our tendency (as born worshippers of linearity and causality) is to discover a brick for the building then immediately look for the next to stack on top. Lakatos contends that PERHAPS you have discovered a brick worthy of the building, now let's see what truly objective tests we will put to this brick and before giving it a final stamp of approval. It seems obvious to say "always question", but the exercise in this book will take you through the process and show you what you may take for granted in this simple concept. For example, do you observe HOW you question? See his discussion throughout on global vs. local counterexamples, just as a start.

Execution of the text: This is the beautiful part. Mr. Lakatos has written this book as theater: characters with definite identities, plot, drama. The narrative flows in the voices of students and a professor who proves to be a sound moderator, intervening at timely points, i.e. those where questions may be crystallized or thoughts prodded to that point. This is where learning takes place, in a heated, moderated debate over Euler's formula. What was most interesting to me about this method was that it lent itself easily to isolating a particular thread of discussion. I literally chose certain characters to research from beginning to end in order to follow the evolution or confirmation of their thinking.

You emerge with a good framework that makes this book excellent reference material for problem-solving.

One last, but important note. This book will have you praising the lowly footnote. I would buy it for that alone. You will read along with the discussion, then get off and examine a footnote, and then pick the dialogue back up not having lost a step. On the contrary, Mr. Lakatos deepens your context with on-point explanations and math history.

Lakatos gives us the true life and history of informal (quasi-empirical) mathematics. He refutes the static and absolute validity of mathematical proofs by showing that "a proof is just thoughts and arguments, which we find so convincing that we use to convince others too".(Our believes are subject to alterations).

He illustrates clearly the indefiniteness of definitions in informal mathematics, based on the same property of our native language.

He argues that theories are constructed by the intensive opposition of proofs and counterexamples, which help either to determine the domain of validity of our conjecture, or to find hidden lemmas and false assumptions to our proof. Therefore, refutations (which are often remitted by our textbooks' authors) play a significant role in a mathematician's work and in the history of mathematics as well.

All in all, he approaches what we mean by the words "doing mathematics" in a natural and sincere way.

I have read it twice, and I think it deserves at least two more readings.(Brilliant ideas always need more effort, despite the fact that the book is well-written).

This book looked very promising. After all, anyone whose read either Feyerabend or Lakatos knows that they had geared up to write, "For and Against Method" cut short by Lakatos's death. We've read "Against Method", just never the "For..". This book was to be our chance!

Why 'was'? Well, the correspondence that takes up most of this book is funny, personal, warm and caring. If you're looking for clarification of the thinkers, look elsewhere. Each letter will start "Dearest Imre/Paul, I just got your last article and am going to send you one of mine. Let's get together in Boston next week. By the way, I've something nasty to say about Popper/Kuhn/Searle. Take care, Imre/Paul." Not very insightful. To be sure, these letters ARE EXTREMELY ENTERTAINING and insightful into each thinker's personality. For instance, from reading this, it is easy to see that a large reason Feyarabend was a scientific 'anarchist' is because he loved to disagree with everyone and taking sides meant he had to agree with someone, thus spoil his devilish fun. In Lakatos, I see someone who wished he could be Feyerabend but could never shake that bugbear called common sense. As I said - insightful into each personality, not each philosophy.

There were, however, other parts of the book. The most educational was the opening dialogue (actually written by Matteo Matterlinski) where Feyerabend and Lakatos lay out their views and criticize the other's. Next, we have the Lakatos lectures which spend 7/8ths of the time reviewing other people's views and only then explaining his own (very badly, I may add). The two appendices were interesting. Lakatos and Feyerabend wrote on their views towards academic freedom. As one may expect, Lakatos is the more conservative here.

Still, I must give three stars as the correspondence was a treat to read. It will have you laughing, shaking your head and oddly enough, coming away with HUGE amounts of respect for both thinkers as their playful intellectual jabs at eachother and willingness to be on the recieving, as well as the giving, end, exemplify how all sciences should conduct themselves.

The most valuable part of the book is the first one, a collection of conferences where Lakatos wittily explains the shortcomings and inconsistencies of Popper's methodology of science, and develops his own views on scientific progress and rationality. The style is vivid. Lakatos apparently cannot avoid disparaging Popper every minute, and actually depicts him as a slobbering fool. I think this is psychologically explainable as a consequence of Popper's not having recognized any of Lakatos's criticisms of his views on empirical science. Lakatos had the dream of renewing popperism by subjecting it to a "hegelian" refutation, i.e. one which simply shows a view as merely initial and which needs a self-movement towards something richer. But Popper saw things differently, and spurned his disciple's heretic proposals. Lakatos must have been hurt by this. [Note: Lakatos' general criticisms of Popper's philosophy might be correct; but there are some points of detail in which he is wrong: for instance, when he says that Popper's analysis of the relations between Kepler's and Newton's laws added nothing to Duhem's treatment of this issue].

The Lakatos-Feyerabend correspondence is interesting. These were surely very special guys. Feyerabend, strange as it may seem, stands out as the meeker of the two; for Lakatos is pure cunning. Their exchange of opinions and invectives over Feyerabend's "Against Method" are worth reading ("Against Method" is worth reading along with this book, as a matter of fact).

Feyerabend compares the trio Popper-Lakatos-Feyerabend with Kant-Hegel-Lenin. I guess Popper himself might have thought this comparison quite fair.

This book is an excellent introduction to the two great philosophers of the latter half of the twentieth century, Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend. In the enlightening and lucid lectures, Imre Lakatos comes off as the established logician whose views on the philosophy of science is marvelously comprehensible and original, and serves as a springboard for the correspondence. What surprised me was the natural humor and gaiety in the letters, that they promised to annihilate one another in the joint efforts at a book, and yet they could not stop talking about the women in their lives. In a way, the book is also an autobiography, a profile of the two proud and brilliant men and serves as an inside peek at their relationship. Kudos to the editors of this book. I recommend reading this book in order to get your feet wet before tackling on Lakatos' other books and Feyerabend's Against Method.