William Berkson

“What is the problem?” If you ever were a student of Joseph Agassi, you remember this question fondly. Agassi expanded and refined Popper’s characterization of a “critical tradition,” in his philosophical writings, historical studies, and as a teacher. His challenge to his students was both to understand the growth of knowledge in past traditions, and to then take on the task of advancing one—in no matter what field. And “What is the problem?” was always the first question to begin understanding the development of ideas and traditions.

I became acquainted with Lakatos’s work in 1965 when I started studying at London School of Economics—where Lakatos taught. As his work was developed over the succeeding years until his death in 1974, one thing always puzzled me: his work seemed to contain such conflicting tendencies. He would continue developing his ideas along a progressive line, and suddenly would insert an element which appeared to me quite reactionary. By ‘reactionary’, I should hasten to add, I mean imbued with the spirit of Positivism—a person of different bias might reverse the labels!When I was given this opportunity to reflect again on Lakatos’s work I did not try to resolve the puzzle by looking into Lakatos’s intellectual history1; rather I attempted to separate clearly those aspects of Lakatos’s work which seemed to me driving in the right and the wrong directions. Both aspects concern the research program which has dominated both philosophy of science and philosophy of mathematics in the twentieth century.

To improve our methods of rational inquiry and decision-making we need to recognize that such methods should guide but not fully determine the choices of individuals. Failure to acknowledge the essential incompleteness of rational methods made the methods of Classical Rationalism quite impractical and opened them to skeptical refutation. Mitigated Skepticism and Fideism failed to correct the error, and as a result put undesirable limits on rational inquiry. When the guiding character of rational methods is recognized, existing methods of scientific research of personal and social decision-making can themselves be rationally assessed and improved. Viewing rational methods as guides thus opens a whole field of inquiry, the inquiry into what rational methods are most useful for specific purposes and in specific situations.

When I was pondering what I should write about Lakatos in this article, I ran into what seemed an insuperable difficulty. On one hand I thought that part of my job should be to give a portrait of Lakatos' personal manner. This would be informative from the point of view of history of thought, as it would help people read his works with greater understanding. And it would be interesting, if I succeeded at all: everyone who knew Lakatos would agree that he was one of the most remarkable people they had met. On the other hand memorial essays tend to give portraits whic are all sweetness and light. But such a portrait of Lakatos would not b a portrait of Lakatos. Everyone has his dark and his light side; sometimes we see one, occasionalley the other. But in Lakatos both were simultaneously and brilliantly displayed at every instant.