Kala

The British Society for the Philosophy of Science

Proofs and Refutations (II)

Author(s): I. Lakatos

Source: The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 14, No. 54 (Aug., 1963), pp.

120-139

Published by: Oxford University Press on behalf of The British Society for the

Philosophy of Science

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/685430

Accessed: 01-09-2016 04:40 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted

digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about

JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

http://about.jstor.org/terms

The British Society for the Philosophy of Science, Oxford University Press are

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal for the

Philosophy of Science

This content downloaded from 129.94.8.252 on Thu, 01 Sep 2016 04:40:25 UTC

All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

PROOFS AND REFUTATIONS (II)*

I. LAKATOS

(c) Improving the conjecture by exception-barring methods. Piecemeal

exclusions. Strategic withdrawal or playing for safety

BETA: I suppose, sir, you are going to explain your puzzling

remarks. But, with all apologies for my impatience, I must get this

off my chest.

TEACHER: Go on.

(ALPHA re-enters.)

BETA: I find some aspects of Delta's arguments silly, but I have

come to believe that there is a reasonable kernel to them. It now

seems to me that no conjecture is generally valid, but only valid in a

certain restricted domain that excludes the exceptions. I am against

dubbing these exceptions 'monsters' or 'pathological cases'. That

would amount to the methodological decision not to consider these as

interesting examples in their...