Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An immanent criticism of Lakatos' account of the ‘degenerating phase’ of Bohr's atomic theory

  • Diskussion
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

This paper presents an immanent criticism of Lakatos' reconstruction of the degenerating phase of Bohr's atomic theory. That is to say, the historiographical methods used are exclusively of a Lakatosian kind. Such a closer Lakatosian look at the historical episode in question shows that Lakatos' own reconstruction is incorrect on three essential points. These are the role of the correspondence principle, the position of the hard core in Bohr's programme, and the presence of important novel predicted facts. I conclude that these defects are irreparable within the framework of Lakatos' methodology of scientific research programmes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bohr, N., Kramers, H. A., Slater, J. C. [1924]: ‘The Quantum Theory of Radiation’, reprinted in: Van der Waerden [1967], pp. 159–176.

  • Feyerabend, P. K. [1970]: ‘Consolations for the Specialist’, in I. Lakatos, A. Musgrave (eds.):Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 197–230.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Forman, P. [1971]: ‘Weimar Culture, Causality and Quantum Theory, 1918–1927: Adaptation by German Physicists and Mathematicians to a Hostile Intellectual Environment’.Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 3, pp. 1–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, H. [1979]: ‘The Career of Continental Drift Theory: an Application of Imre Lakatos' Analysis of Scientific Growth to the Rise of Drift Theory’.Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 10, pp. 21–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hund, F. [1974]:The History of Quantum Theory. London: Harrap.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jammer, M. [1966]:The Conceptual Development of Quantum Mechanics. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramers, H. A. [1923a]: ‘Über das Model des Heliumatoms’, in H.B.G. Casimir et al. (eds.):H. A. Kramers: Collected Scientific Papers. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 192–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kramers, H. A. [1923b]: ‘Das Korrespondenzprinzip und der Schalenbau des Atoms’.Die Naturwissenschaften 11, pp. 550–559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. [1970]: ‘Reflections on my Critics’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.):Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 231–278.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. [1972]: ‘Notes on Lakatos’, in R. C. Buck and R. S. Cohen (eds.):Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 137–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos, I. [1970]: ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos and A. Musgrave (eds.):Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 91–195.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Lakatos I. [1972]: ‘History of Science and its Rational Reconstructions’, in R. C. Buck and R. S. Cohen (eds.):Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 8. Dordrecht: Reidel, pp. 91–135.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKinnon, E. [1977]: ‘Heisenberg, Models and the Rise of Matrix Mechanics’.Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 8, pp. 137–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer-Abich, K. M. [1965]:Korrespondenz, Individualität und Komplementarität. Wiesbaden: Steiner Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • McMullin, E. [1978]: ‘Philosophy of Science and its Rational Reconstructions’, in G. Radnitzky and G. Andersson (eds.):Progress and Rationality in Science. Dordrecht: Reidel, 221–252.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Radder, Hans [1981]: ‘The Role of H. A. Kramers in the Transition Process from the Bohr Theory of the Atom towards Heisenberg's Matrix Mechanics’. Forthcoming.

  • Stegmüller, W. [1973]:Probleme und Resultate der Wissenschaftstheorie und Analytischen Philosophie, Band 2: Theorie und Erfahrung. Zweiter Halbband: Theorienstrukturen und Theoriendynamik. Berlin: Springer Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suppe, F. [1977]: ‘Afterword 1977’, in F. Suppe (ed.):The Structure of Scientific Theories. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 617–730.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van der Waerden, B. L. [1967]:Sources of Quantum Mechanics. Amsterdam: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centrale Interfakulteit Vrije Universiteit, Postbus 7161, 1007 MC, Amsterdam, Niederlande

    Hans Radder

Authors
  1. Hans Radder
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I would like to thank Roger Cooke and Peter Kirschenmann for their valuable comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Radder, H. An immanent criticism of Lakatos' account of the ‘degenerating phase’ of Bohr's atomic theory. Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 13, 99–109 (1982). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801188

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01801188

Keywords

Search

Navigation