🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov12.145454.7709@ucthpx.uct.ac.za> gavan@elc.mth.uct.ac.za (Gavan Tredoux) writes:
>
>In particular, Kuhn Lakatos and Popper have *rather* a lot in common.
>It's just that Popper doesn't think so. In fact Lakatos always
>presented himself as a Popperian (Popper declined the honour) while
>Kuhn cites Popper as a major influence (Popper reacted vehemently).
>
>Gavan Tredoux
>UCT 

There are close links of all sorts between these philosophers.  If you
read Kuhn's early work, like ``The Copernican Revolution'', he there
is more Popperian than Popper, putting forward what later came to be
known as naive falsificationism.  Lakatos's notion of a scientific research
programme is very similar to the earlier Popperian notion of a
metaphysical research programme.  The more I read Popper the more I
think that these other philosophers have very little original to offer.
One of the probles has been that Popper has written vastly more than
he has published, though he has lectured on this new material.  I guess
a lot will appear when he dies.


Antoni Diller