Supporting Research

What is over the next hill?

Turn panel off

Turn panel on

created 2009-07-28

DensePoint Analysis

Reasoning

Observations

Action

Person

Ideas

Goals

Plan

Groups

Purpose of diagram

Quick view of eight neighborhoods surrounding a topic or statement.

To compare two analyses click here.

Click here.


ID1: Paul Feyerabend argued that Lakatos's methodology was not a methodology at all, but merely "words that sound like the elements of a methodology."[10] He argued that Lakatos's methodology was no different in practice from epistemological anarchism, Feyerabend's own position. He wrote in Science in a Free Society (after Lakatos's death) that: Lakatos realized and admitted that the existing standards of rationality, standards of logic concluded, were too restrictive and would have hindered science had they been applied with determination. He therefore permitted the scientist to violate them (he admits that science is not "rational" in the sense of these standards). However, he demanded that research programmes show certain features in the long run they must be progressive.... I have argued that this demand no longer restricts scientific practice. Any development agrees with it.[11] Lakatos and Feyerabend planned to produce a joint work in which Lakatos would develop a rationalist description of science and Feyerabend would attack it. According to Feyerabend, Lakatos's unexpected demise threw Feyerabend into a depression.

ID2: Paul Feyerabend argued that Lakatos's methodology was not a methodology at all, but merely "words that sound like the elements of a methodology."[10] He argued that Lakatos's methodology was no different in practice from epistemological anarchism, Feyerabend's own position. He wrote in Science in a Free Society (after Lakatos's death) that: Lakatos realized and admitted that the existing standards of rationality, standards of logic concluded, were too restrictive and would have hindered science had they been applied with determination. He therefore permitted the scientist to violate them (he admits that science is not "rational" in the sense of these standards). However, he demanded that research programmes show certain features in the long run they must be progressive.... I have argued that this demand no longer restricts scientific practice. Any development agrees with it.[11] Lakatos and Feyerabend planned to produce a joint work in which Lakatos would develop a rationalist description of science and Feyerabend would attack it. According to Feyerabend, Lakatos's unexpected demise threw Feyerabend into a depression.

ID3: Paul Feyerabend argued that Lakatos's methodology was not a methodology at all, but merely "words that sound like the elements of a methodology."[10] He argued that Lakatos's methodology was no different in practice from epistemological anarchism, Feyerabend's own position. He wrote in Science in a Free Society (after Lakatos's death) that: Lakatos realized and admitted that the existing standards of rationality, standards of logic concluded, were too restrictive and would have hindered science had they been applied with determination. He therefore permitted the scientist to violate them (he admits that science is not "rational" in the sense of these standards). However, he demanded that research programmes show certain features in the long run they must be progressive.... I have argued that this demand no longer restricts scientific practice. Any development agrees with it.[11] Lakatos and Feyerabend planned to produce a joint work in which Lakatos would develop a rationalist description of science and Feyerabend would attack it. According to Feyerabend, Lakatos's unexpected demise threw Feyerabend into a depression.

ID4: Paul Feyerabend argued that Lakatos's methodology was not a methodology at all, but merely "words that sound like the elements of a methodology."[10] He argued that Lakatos's methodology was no different in practice from epistemological anarchism, Feyerabend's own position. He wrote in Science in a Free Society (after Lakatos's death) that: Lakatos realized and admitted that the existing standards of rationality, standards of logic concluded, were too restrictive and would have hindered science had they been applied with determination. He therefore permitted the scientist to violate them (he admits that science is not "rational" in the sense of these standards). However, he demanded that research programmes show certain features in the long run they must be progressive.... I have argued that this demand no longer restricts scientific practice. Any development agrees with it.[11] Lakatos and Feyerabend planned to produce a joint work in which Lakatos would develop a rationalist description of science and Feyerabend would attack it. According to Feyerabend, Lakatos's unexpected demise threw Feyerabend into a depression.