Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-lqqdg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-17T00:06:58.556Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Two Dogmas of Methodology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Larry Laudan
Larry Laudan*
Affiliation:
University of Pittsburgh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Discussion
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 43 , Issue 4 , December 1976 , pp. 585 - 597
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

†

I am grateful to my colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this paper, and especially to Adolf Grünbaum whose criticisms saved me from some egregious errors.

References

REFERENCES

Born, M. Physics in My Generation. New York: Dover, 1960.Google Scholar
Collingwood, R. The Idea of History. New York: Oxford University Press, 1956.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. “Consolations for the Specialist.” In Criticisms and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pages 197–230.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. Against Method. New Jersey: Humanities Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Grünbaum, A. “Can a Theory Answer more Questions than One of Its Rivals?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 27 (1976): Page 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koertge, N. “Theory Change in Science.” In Conceptual Change. Edited by Pearce, G. and Maynard, P. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1973. Page 167ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. “Reflections on My Critics.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pages 231–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. “The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.” In Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Edited by Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970. Pages 91–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakatos, I. and Zahar, E. “Why did Copernicus' Research Program Supercede Ptolemy's?” In The Copernican Achievement. Edited by Westman, R. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975. Pages 354–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. “C. S. Peirce and the Trivialization of the Self-Corrective Thesis.” In Foundations of Scientific Method in the 19th Century. Edited by Giere, R. and Westfall, R. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973. Pages 275–306.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. Progress and Its Problems. Berkeley: University of California Press, forthcoming 1977.Google Scholar
Popper, K. “The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions.” In Problems of Scientific Revolutions. Edited by R. Harré. Oxford: 1975. Pages 72–101.Google Scholar
Post, H. “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 2 (1971): 213–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar