Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences > Humanities > Philosophy
March 24, 2022
August 19, 2022
August 31, 2022
Articles in Spectra are freely available under a Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0) which allows others to re-use the work without permission as long as the work is properly cited.
Data Availability Statement
The author confirms that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restrictions upon request.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares that no competing interests exist.
Given that this project did not involve human or animal subjects, no IRB or IACUC approval was needed. All research was derived from publicly shared sources.
No funding was used to conduct this research.
An important question that has always been debated in philosophy of science concerns that of the best account of science. Ranging from multiple accounts, from Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, and Imre Lakatos, etc., an argument of how Lakatos’s Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes (MSRP) is the best account of science will be defended. In addition, the best account of scientific evidence and explanation – featuring philosophers from Lakatos, Peter Achinstein, Nancy Cartwright, and Philip Kitcher – is presented in support of Lakatos’s MSRP. Furthermore, using the scientific theory of continental drift, proposed by Alfred L. Wegener, will illustrate how Wegener’s theory fits well with Lakatos’s account of science.
Philosophy of science, Karl Popper, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Alfred L. Wegner, falsificationism, naïve falsificationism, normal science, revolutionary science, ethodology of Scientific Research Programmes (MSRP)
Primary research article
Catarata, K. J. Q. (2022). Why Imre Lakatos’s account of science is superior. Spectra Undergraduate Research Journal, 2(2), 23-29. https://doi.org/10.9741/2766-7227.1017