Journal for General Philosophy of Science

, Volume 33, Issue 2, pp 349–368 | Cite as

Verisimilitude and the Dynamicsof Scientific Research Programmes

  • Jesús P. Bonilla


Some peculiarities of the evaluation of theories within scientific research programmes (SRPs) and of the assessing of rival SRPs are described assuming that scientists try to maximise an ‘epistemic utility function’ under economic and institutional constraints. Special attention is given to Lakatos' concepts of ‘empirical progress’ and ‘theoretical progress’. A notion of ‘empirical verisimilitude’ is defended as an appropriate utility function. The neologism ‘methodonomics’ is applied to this kind of studies.

economics of science empirical progress epistemic utility research programmes scientific progress theoretical progress verisimilitude methodonomics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Balzer, W., Moulines, C. U. and Sneed, J.: 1987, An Architectonic for Science, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Howson, C. and Urbach, P.: 1989, Scientific Reasoning. The Bayesian Approach, Open Court, La Salle (Ill.).Google Scholar
  3. Kieseppä, I. A.: 1996, ‘On the Aim of the Theory of Verisimilitude’, Synthese 107, 421–438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Kitcher, P.: 1993, The Advancement of Science, Oxford University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Kuhn, T. S.: 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  6. Kuipers, T. (ed.): 1987, What is closer-to-the-truth?, Rodopi, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Kuipers, T.: 1991, ‘Revisiting the Hypothetico-Deductive Method’, Acta Philosophica Groningana 3.Google Scholar
  8. Lakatos, I.: 1978, ‘Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes’, in I. Lakatos, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Philosophical Papers. Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Niiniluoto, I.: 1984, Is Science Progressive?, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Niiniluoto, I.: 1987, Truthlikeness, Reidel, Dordrecht.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Popper, K. R.: 1962, ‘Truth, Rationality and the Development of Knowledge’, in Conjectures and Refutations, Routledge, London.Google Scholar
  12. Zamora Bonilla, J. P.: 1992, ‘Truthlikeness Without Truth: A Methodological Approach’, Synthese 93, 343–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Zamora Bonilla, J. P.: 1996a, Mentiras a medias (in Spanish), Ediciones de la Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Madrid.Google Scholar
  14. Zamora Bonilla, J. P.: 1996b, ‘Verisimilitude, Structuralism and Scientific Progress’, Erkenntnis 44, 25–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zamora Bonilla, J. P.: 1999, ‘The Elementary Economics of Scientific Consensus’, Theoria 14.3, 461–88.Google Scholar
  16. Zamora Bonilla, J. P.: 2000, ‘Truthlikeness, Rationality and Scientific Method’, Synthese 122, 321–35. Departamento de Lógica y Filosofía de la Ciencia Facultad de Filosofía U.N.E.D. 28040 Madrid (Spain) ( Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jesús P. Bonilla
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de Lógica y Filosofía de la CienciaFacultad de FilosofíaU.N.E.D.MadridSpain

Personalised recommendations