Method in History: For and against

Lakatos I. , “History of science and its rational reconstructions”, Boston studies in the philosophy of science (ed. Buck R. C. and Cohen R. S. ), viii (Dordrecht, 1971), 91–136. In the same volume are criticisms of Lakatos's paper by Kuhn T. S. (137–46), Feigl H. (147–50), Hall R. J. (151–9) and Koertge N. (160–73) and also Lakatos's “Reply to critics” (174–82). In the volume edited by Elkana (280–97), Lakatos discusses his theory with Z. Bechler and others. See also Lakatos I. , “Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes”, in Criticism and the growth of knowledge (ed. Lakatos I. and Musgrave A. , Cambridge, 1970), 91–195; Quinn P. , “Methodological appraisal and heuristic advice: Problems in the methodology of scientific research programmes”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, iii (1972), 135–50.

Ben-David J. , The scientist's role in society. A comparative study (New Jersey, 1971) and T. S. Kuhn's review in Minerva, x (1972), 166–78.

For example, the writings of J. D. Bernal.

Schofield R. , Mechanism and materialism. British natural philosophy in an age of reason (New Jersey, 1971); Kuhn T. S. , “Energy conservation as an example of simultaneous discovery”, in Critical problems in the history of science (ed. Clagett M. , Wisconsin, 1969), 321–56. For criticisms of the latter work see Elkana Y. , The discovery of the conservation of energy (London, 1974); Heimann P. M. , “Conservation of forces and the conservation of energy”, Centaurus, xviii (1974), 147–61; idem, “Helmholtz and Kant: The metaphysical foundations of Ueber die erhaltung der Kraft”, Studies in history and philosophy of science, v (1974), 205–38; Cantor G. N. , “William Robert Grove, the correlation of forces, and the conservation of energy”, Centaurus, xix (1976), 273–90.

Cf. Berlin I. , Historical inevitability (London, 1954).

Compare the approaches and claims made by Merton R. K. , “Science, technology and society in seventeenth century England”, Osiris, iv (1938), 414–565, and Manuel F. E. , A portrait of Isaac Newton (Cambridge, Mass., 1968).

Zahar E. G. , “Why did Einstein's programme supersede Lorentz's?”, British journal for the philosophy of science, xxiv (1973), 95–123 and 223–62; and replies by Feyerabend P. K. ( ibid ., xxv (1974), 25–28), Miller A. I. ( ibid ., 29–45), Schaffner K. F. ( ibid ., 45–78) and Prokhovnik S. J. ( ibid ., 336–40). Some of the writers cited in ref. 1, in particular Kuhn T. S. , also criticize Lakatos's historical claims.

See works cited in ref. 7 and Gasman L. D. , “Myths and x-rays”, British journal for the philosophy of science, xxvi (1975), 51–60.

Cf. Hesse M. , “Reasons and evaluation in the history of science”, in Changing perspectives in the history of science (eds Teich M. and Young R. , London, 1973), 127–47.

An extensive bibliography of writings on methodology will be found in Laudan L. L. , “Theories of scientific method from Plato to Mach”, History of science, vii (1968), 1–63.