Talk:Imre Lakatos

message: I've added the comment about informal mathematics, because I'm sure that Lakatos wasn't claiming that 'formal proofs don't prove'. The Euler characteristic example was capped off by a formal proof.
Charles Matthews 18:02, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Informal Mathematics

message: "Thomas Kuhn was so popular during the 60's that people attended his lectures in adjacent lecture theatres listening to him via a sound system. Ergo, it was as if God was speaking, for they could not see anyone." Is it me, or does that last line not seem appropriate for an encyclopedia?--The Individual 06:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this really necessary? 

message: ... from anyone who watches/has contributed to this article.  I just made this addition to the article on Theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theory&diff=prev&oldid=171922842 - I'd appreciate it if people would go over it, make any necessry edits to correct or clarify it or just to improve the style.  Thanks, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for help 

message: :Image:ILakatos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:ILakatos.jpg

message: I didn't understand the following under the Research Programmes section:
"...though many commentators believe that Popper2 just is Lakatos."
I've not read enough Lakatos to come across Popper1, 2 and 3 yet, but I wonder from the above if it is meant that Lakatos expounded a philosophy, Popper2, and attributed it to the Popper himself, only to be accused of doing what the exponents of Popper1 did. That is to say Popper2 is also a philosophy that exists "only in the minds of critics".
If that is what we want to say it needs to be both clarified and attributed to someone.
I would also risk cutting the remainder of the paragraph which reads,
:"The idea that it is often not possible to show decisively which of two theories or research programmes is better at a particular point in time whereas subsequent developments may show that one is 'progressive' while the other is 'degenerative', and therefore less acceptable was a major contribution both to philosophy of science and to history of science. Whether it was Popper's idea or Lakatos' idea, or, most likely, a combination, is of less importance."
For two reasons. The first sentence outlines what has already been explained reasonably well only for the purpose of marking it as a 'major contribution'. I don't disagree that Lakatos contributions to phil. sci. were considerable, but I would prefer to make that self evident by instead enumerating the people he influenced, the controversies he sparked and whatever else it is that makes his contribution 'major'.
And lastly, I read all the way down to "Whether it was Popper's idea or Lakatos [...] is of less importance". Are we suggesting that Research Programmes could reasonably be attributed to Popper rather than Lakatos? The tone of the sentence suggests we are dismissing a controversy. Is that what should be inferred? --ChrisSteinbach (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarify if possible

message: Clean-up: removed RedHouse18's comments requiring citations. They were valid comments, but have now been addressed in the article. --winterstein (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Lakatos's analysis was part of a wider concern with Friedman's work. Snowdon and Vane, regarding Friedman's work in 1968 on monetary policy, argue that Friedman used his neo-classical monetarist approach to predict an accelerating rate of inflation due to attempts to use expansionary monetary policy in order to attain an unrealistic employment target. His research ultimately led to a break down of the popular belief in economics at the time that there was a long-run trade-off between unemployment and inflation. Robert E. Lucas argued that the Friedman-Phelps model was "as clear cut an experimental distinction as macroeconomics is ever likely to see". Roger Backhouse argued that Friedman and Phelps had predicted novel facts that were corroborated by the events of the 1970s.Mark Blaug argued that Friedman's 1968 paper and its successful prediction of novel facts was itself proof that Friedman's monetarist neo-classical research programme was a progressive research programme. Brian Snowdon, Howard R. Vane Modern macroeconomics: its origins, development and current state Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005  p 182  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winterstein (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Milton Friedman neoclassical economics case study

message: After having read Lakatos' 'Science and Pseudoscience' talk transcript, I have had trouble finding anything he says that matches the claim in the Wikipedia article:
"a theory is pseudoscientific if it fails to make any novel predictions of previously unknown phenomena, in contrast with scientific theories which at least predict some novel fact(s), whether or not they are confirmed.[8] Within the class of scientific theories, progressive scientific theories are those which have their novel facts confirmed and degenerate scientific theories are those whose predictions of novel facts are refuted."
Instead, Lakatos makes a few points that appear to indicate that he equates pseudoscientific with degenerate:
"But how can one distinguish a scientific or progressive programme from a pseudoscientific or degenerating one?"
"But if Kuhn is right, then there is no explicit demarcation between science and pseudoscience, no distinction between scientific progress and intellectual decay..."
Halfway through the transcript he stops using the term "pseudoscientific" and starts using "degenerate" and then the only criterion he seems to put forward is the prediction of novel and correct facts. Are you sure that Lakatos considered degenerate theories to be a subset of scientific ones? If so, I am not sure how that reference shows it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evelyncanarvon (talk • contribs) 10:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience 

message: Imre Lakatos essentially equates Popper's World 3 with Frege's Third Realm - discussion of translations is on another talk page
"Frege's 'third realm' ('drittes Reich') and Popper's 'World 3' are alike in so far as they contain thought contents, mathematical objects and other abstracta" - from Imre Lakatos and Theories of Scientific Change, Frege and Popper, p 417.
There is a discussion about redirecting Dritte Reich away from Nazi Germany. Discussion is here. ParkSehJik (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Frege also sympathised with Adolf Hitler. Conincidence? :O --178.1.117.47 (talk) 21:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Imre Lakatos essentially equates Popper's World 3 with Frege's Third Realm - discussion of translations is on another talk page 

message: Most of the section Imre_Lakatos#The_Milton_Friedman_neoclassical_economics_case_study reads like a coatrack whose main topic is not Lakatos at all, but Friedman and his theories.  I'm planning to trim this down to 1-2 paragraphs, mostly based on the first 2 paragraphs of the section.  After all, Lakatos was long dead by the time most of this happened.  Perhaps some of this belongs in the neoclassical economics or pseudoscience articles? --Macrakis (talk) 12:36, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Friedman and Standard Oil

message: “He changed his last name once again to Lakatos (Locksmith) in honor of Géza Lakatos.” Here “last name” should probably be changed to surname. Hungarians place their surname first. If you say “Lakatos Imre” and you mention “last name”, it sounds like you are talking about the last of those two names, namely Imre (actually a given name).--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surname 

message: Cause of death?--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:26, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Perhaps these changes belong on an LSE page? --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 21:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The most recent deletions from Lakatos page 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Imre Lakatos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615224323/http://lakatos.ru/ to http://lakatos.ru/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Here is a list of some sources I'm planning on using in hopes of adding to the article. Would appreciate any advice or critiques about the appropriateness of these sources, etc.
Musgrave, Alan and Pigden, Charles, "Imre Lakatos", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/lakatos/>.
Great readings in clinical science : essential selections for mental health professionals. Lilienfeld, Scott O., 1960-, O'Donohue, William T. Boston: Pearson. 2012. ISBN 9780205698035. OCLC 720560483.
Losee, J. (2004). Theories of scientific progress : An introduction. New York: Routledge.
Gower, B. (1997). Scientific method : An historical and philosophical introduction. London ; New York: Routledge.
Bwoollard (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography  

message: The article states that during the occupation, Lakatos changed his name to Imre Molnár.
On p.3 of Brendan Larvor's "Lakatos: An Introduction" (Routledge, 2013), it says he assumed the name Tibor Molnár. See: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=X80rBgAAQBAJ&q=tibor#v=snippet&q=tibor&f=false 
Which is correct? Does anyone have a definitive reference?  George963 au (talk) 13:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: New subjects are expected at the bottom of the talk page, not at the top. Dominic Mayers (talk) 02:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Dominic, I put it at the top only because the "Life" section to which it refers is at the top of the article. Seemed logical to me, if you don't like it, please feel free to move it to the bottom. George963 au (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Life

message: As a matter of fact the very connection beteeen the two philosophers lies in their common origin, both jews snd both hungarians (as like as george Soros). Lakatos was yes a popperian follower but with more attention toward thomas kuhn and feyerabend. His sadly dead so young stopped his further research in epistemology field Feltribamba (talk) 11:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lieson lakatos popper