Kuhn vs Popper - About James H. Collier

Lakatos differed from Popper in allowing not onlythe same scientists but also the same scientifictheories to join battle in the future, thoughdefenders of a defeated theory would carry aliability into the next engagement. Two points arestriking about the dialectical resolution to underdetermination.First, it draws attention to what economists callthe ‘opportunity costs’ of theory choice. In otherwords, when designing the test case for rivaltheories, scientists are forced to think about theorychoice as simultaneously involving the rejection ofone or more other theories. This situation naturallyinvites later reflections about whether the selectionof one theory over another had come at too high aprice. Kuhn’s view of science disallowed preciselythese considerations because a new paradigmrewrites its history to make it appear as though itsascendancy was an eventuality – not a deliberatechoice with consequences that may have beenunforeseen at the time, regretted now, yet stillreversible in the future.Second, the dialectical resolution shows thattheory choice is rarely, if ever, forced on scientists.Rather, scientists usually must themselves undertakethe regular contestation of theories. Here thefollowers of Kuhn and Popper were in agreement,but drew opposing conclusions. Kuhnians – much64