Model-groups as scientific research programmes

Abstract

Lakatos's methodology of scientific research programmes centres around series of theories, with little regard to the role of models in theory construction. Modifying it to incorporate model-groups, clusters of developmental models that are intended to become new theories, provides a description of the model dynamics within the search for physics beyond the standard model. At the moment, there is no evidence for BSM physics, despite a concerted search effort especially focused around the standard model account of electroweak symmetry breaking (also known as the Higgs mechanism). Using the framework provided by Lakatosian research programmes, we can capture the way the periphery of a model-group changes as the available parameter space shrinks, while its central tenets remain untouched by unfavourable experimental findings. By way of motivation, I provide two case studies of model-groups that offer alternative mechanisms for electroweak symmetry breaking: supersymmetry and composite-Higgs models. Both of these model-groups are under pressure from the discovery of the Higgs boson, yet they have both been active research projects in the years after the Higgs discovery. However, a proper assessment of the progress of an ongoing research programme is impossible through a purely Lakatosian lens, so I propose replacing it with Laudan's problem-solving account, which provides ongoing assessment, while offering normative guidance concerning the pursuit-worthiness of research programmes. My incorporation of model-groups into Lakatosian research programmes captures the developments of two attempts to expand our physical description of the world, and Laudan's problem-solving rationality allows us to assess their pursuit-worthiness.

Building Models for a Scientific Approach to Problem Solving in Production Systems

“…In other words, at this stage of the paper, the aim is to determine as accurately as possible which factors, in this particular case, are the causes of the problem, how they work, whether they are connected and how, from where they appear, what enhances and what reduces their impact -their description and the way they act are determined. Very often, the concepts of cause and effect are confused because it is easier to determine the consequences (they are visible) than the causes, so sometimes solutions are built on the basis of consequences and suboptimal or even wrong solutions are obtained [10,11,12].…”

Využití metodologie vědeckovýzkumných programů pro hodnocení vědeckovýzkumné činnosti

“…VYUŽITÍ METODOLOGIE VĚDECKOVÝZKUMNÝCH PROGRAMŮ Thomason, 1992;Gonzalez, 2001;Feldbacher-Escamilla, 2019;Erdin, 2020; Philosophy 22 15, 068 Herne and Setala, 2004;Kuukkanen, 2017;Silva and da Costa, 2019;Callaghan, 2019;Chall, 2020;Political science 15 10, 274 Vasguez, 1997;Waltz, 1997;Elman and Elman, 1997;Lustick, 1997;Elman and Elman, 2002;Walker, 2010;Dumitru, 2020; Education, educational research 12 8, 219 Chang and Chiu, 2008;Niaz, 1995;Han, 2014;Inglis and Foster, 2018 Skutečnost, že Lakatos se zabýval problémem metodologie vědeckých výzkumných programů (resp. výzkumných programů) výhradně ve vztahu k přírodním vědám, se projevuje i v zaměření vědecké diskuse.…”

Jump ship, shift gears, or just keep on chugging: Assessing the responses to tensions between theory and evidence in contemporary cosmology

“…Indeed the Lakatosian approach has been criticized on the grounds that the progressive/degenerative status of a research programme can only be judged in retrospect (Chall 2020, 18). This has led Chall (2020) for example, to combine a version of Lakatos' approach (modified to include models) with a Laudan-inspired appraisal of problem-solving successes and capacities. We share Chall's criticism of the Lakatosian approach-we would like a 1 contemporaneous way to appraise research programmes.…”