The following text discusses philosophy of science.
Imre Lakatos proposed "research programs" as the unit of scientific assessment, improving on both Popper's falsificationism and Kuhn's paradigm shifts. A research program has a "hard core" of assumptions protected from refutation and a "protective belt" of auxiliary hypotheses that can be modified when predictions fail. Scientists reasonably resist abandoning productive programs for every failed prediction. Programs are "progressive" if modifications predict new facts later confirmed, and "degenerating" if changes are merely defensive. Only comparison between rival programs, not individual tests, judges scientific merit.
How does Lakatos's view differ from strict falsificationism?
Individual failed predictions should immediately discard theories
Scientists reasonably protect core assumptions while adjusting auxiliary hypotheses
No modifications to theories are ever acceptable
Research programs cannot be compared to each other
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Lakatos proposes a "hard core" protected from refutation with a "protective belt" that can be modified, and notes "scientists reasonably resist abandoning productive programs for every failed prediction."
- Evidence: Core protected; auxiliary belt modifiable; resistance is reasonable.
- Reasoning: Not every failure should doom a theory.
- Conclusion: Protection with modification is legitimate.
Choice A is incorrect because this describes strict falsificationism that Lakatos criticizes. Choice C is incorrect because modifications to the protective belt are allowed. Choice D is incorrect because "comparison between rival programs...judges scientific merit."