How did Lakatos view the growth of knowledge?
I viewed the growth of knowledge as a dynamic, dialectical process. In science, this happens through 'scientific research programmes,' each with a hard core of fundamental assumptions protected by a 'protective belt' of auxiliary hypotheses. When anomalies arise, it is the auxiliary hypotheses, not the hard core, that are modified. In mathematics, my 'proofs and refutations' model illustrates a similar evolutionary path. Knowledge advances not by static verification, but through a continuous struggle with criticism, conjecture, and the refinement of existing ideas.
Ask Imre Lakatos the follow-up →