Philosophy of science.
Compare and contrast the views of Popper, Kuhn, and Lakatos on the issue of demarcation. What is the demarcation problem, as Popper describes it, and what is Popper’s criterion for science?
Why does he reject inductive confirmation as a mark of science? Why does he think his new criterion is better?
What is Kuhn’s criterion for science, and what is his distinction between “normal” and “revolutionary” science? What is Kuhn’s criticism of Popper’s criterion? What is Lakatos’s criterion, and why does he reject both Popper and Kuhn?
What features of Popper’s and Kuhn’s views does Lakatos preserve and why? What do you think is the proper criterion for science? Can there really be such a criterion? Explain.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|
