“The Battle is on”: Lakatos, Feyerabend, and the student protests

European Journal for Philosophy of Science 9 (2):1-33 (2019)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

This paper shows how late 1960’s student protests influenced the thought of Imre Lakatos and Paul Feyerabend. I argue that student movements shaped their work from this period, specifically Lakatos’s “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” and Feyerabend’s Against Method. Archival evidence shows that their political environments at London and Berkeley inflected their writing on scientific method, entrenching Lakatos’s search for a rationalist account of scientific development, and encouraging Feyerabend’s ‘anarchistic’ theory of knowledge. I document this influence and draw two broader lessons: one lesson about the role of biography in philosophy and the other about the historiography of student protests.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 92,440

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Lakatosowska periodyzacja twórczości Feyerabenda .Krzysztof J. Kilian - 2012 - Studia Philosophica Wratislaviensia 7 (4).

Analytics

Added to PP
2019-03-22

Downloads
36 (#447,330)

6 months
8 (#373,029)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

References found in this work

Science, Policy, and the Value-Free Ideal.Heather Douglas - 2009 - University of Pittsburgh Press.
Conjectures and Refutations.K. Popper - 1963 - Les Etudes Philosophiques 21 (3):431-434.
Representing and Intervening.Ian Hacking - 1983 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 35 (4):381-390.
Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes.Imre Lakatos - 1970 - In Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge. Cambridge [Eng.]: Cambridge University Press. pp. 91-196.
Against Method.P. Feyerabend - 1975 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 26 (4):331-342.

View all 43 references / Add more references