Become a Friend of Aeon to save articles and enjoy other exclusive benefits. Aeon email newsletters are issued by the not-for-profit, registered charity Aeon Media Group Ltd Australian Business Number 80 This Email Newsletter Privacy Statement pertains to the personally identifying information you voluntarily submit in the form of your email address to receive our email newsletters. More generally, when visiting the Aeon site you should refer to our site Privacy Policy here. This Email Newsletter Privacy Statement may change from time to time and was last revised 18 May,

Author:Yozil Meztikinos
Language:English (Spanish)
Published (Last):6 July 2004
PDF File Size:2.4 Mb
ePub File Size:6.93 Mb
Price:Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]

XXVI , no. DOI: Abstract: The Schumpeterian and neo-schumpeterian theories represent pillars on which the subject of innovation developed and gained expression. Moreover, innovation is an independent area both in national and international congresses. The objective of this essay is to investigate - from two criteria of delimitation Popper and Lakatos - the scientificity of innovation theory. Innovation is analyzed from three macro themes: i the neoclassical current of economic theory; ii the introduction of innovation theory and reviews of the more recent Schumpeter manuscripts; iii the contributions brought by the neo-chumpeterian innovation current.

For these reasons, the relevance of the theme in the exact sciences and applied social sciences is recognized, with emphasis on the economy and administration. The purpose of this study is to investigate - from two criteria of demarcation Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos - the scientificity of innovation in Schumpeterian and neo-schumpeterian perspective. Innovation is analyzed from three conceptual milestones: a the current of neoclassical economic theory; b the introduction of innovation theory and reviews of the last Schumpeter manuscripts; c the unfolding of the theory, entitled neo-schumpeterian current.

Considering that this work has already begun in other fields of study in Administration Albach, ; De Mattos, it is hoped that with this essay we can initiate the discussion in the field of innovation, i contributing to the strengthening of the bases of philosophy of science bases of these two authors Popper and Lakatos ; ii discussing and bringing improvements both to the reflection and understanding of the sub-area of innovation per se; iii and complementing a discussion already begun on how much administration and the sub-areas that compose it can or cannot be considered a science.

In the light of the above considerations, this paper begins by discussing the contributions of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos to the philosophy of science, as well as the notes of their respective criteria of scientific demarcation.

In the sequence, the macrothemes of innovation are presented and an analysis is carried out regarding its scientificity. Lastly, the final considerations are presented. Popper is among the most influential philosophers of science of the twentieth century. Popper argues that it would be impossible to confirm that a law or theory would be true, even if its repetition would lead one to believe it.

The scientist should then be guided by the denial of what was being observed. This perspective shift brought a reversal in the way of doing science Popper, This change responds the need for standard and systematic scientific methods so that the evolution of science could be accepted and confronted in a coherence way.

Popper, then, defends the hypothetical deductive method for the execution of theoretical work, which consists of testing laws or theories in order to try to falsify it.

However, for this to be possible, it is important that general law, hypothesis, conjecture or supposition be falsifiable, in order that it must be clear and non-tautological Popper, The higher the numbers of unproven tests of a theory, the greater its degree of corroboration, making the theory in question be considered strong.

Thus, more falsification tests will continue to be made. To illustrate, Popper uses Darwinism with metaphor Persson, , p. Organisms have expectations, if frustrated they die, unlike the cientists whose hypothesis dies in their stead. And just as a species cannot be assured of an infinite life, a scientific theory can never once and for all be verified, but its reliability is provisional.

However, the ideas defended by Popper had also evolved, seeking to improve the defined concepts and fill the gaps. Among the concepts presented, we can highlight:. Dogmatic falsificationism: admits the fallibility of all scientific theories without qualification, but maintains an infallible empirical basis theories are judged from empirical evidence.

In this perspective, the advance of science would happen on the basis of successive refutations of theories through the observation of concrete facts;. This type of falsificationism, according to Lakatos and Musgrave p. Sophisticated falsificationism: considered a theoretical advance in relation to the previous item, it emphasizes the criteria of demarcation that will serve to classify a theory as scientific.

The theory is scientific when it has a surplus of empirical content corroborated in relation to the theory that precedes it. The formulation of research problems, according to Chalmers , is related to the study of phenomena that should be understood from the formulation of hypotheses, which will be reviewed and tested.

If a hypothesis remains successful for a long period of time and eventually becomes falsified, a new research problem arises. This shift, between one problem and another illustrates the advances of science. From the new problem, new hypotheses will be needed, and these will be retested. It is assumed, then, that science advances through successive attempts to explain concrete phenomena based on particular hypotheses Chalmers, In addition, some requirements are necessary so that the hypotheses, in addition to being falsifiable, have the potential to evolve the research: A Based on Theories; B Have clarity and precision; C The amplitude level of the statement, considering that the best theory, behind the hypothesis, is one that presents more precise and broad statements about specific phenomena, and still resists falsification.

Lakatos is known for presenting a proposal to expand the scope of scientific research, extending the unit of analysis of an isolated scientific theory for the study of research programs, which, according to him, would be composed of a nucleus, hypotheses and heuristics. According to this approach, the empirical criterion changes from agreement with the facts observed and is replaced by a better theory, referring to the one that presents new information, when compared with the previous theory, so that at least part of the informational surplus be corroborated Collodel, This is the idea defended by Kuhn, the difference proposed by Lakatos consists in the establishment of certain requirements attributed to the sets of theories, called by him of research programmes, in order to lead the belief that this substitution is not done in an unsystematic and irrational way.

In the words of Lakatos and Musgrave , p. The research programme consists of methodological rules that guide researchers about which research paths need to be avoided negative heuristics and those that should be addressed positive heuristics.

It represents a structure formed by an irreducible nucleus of basic hypotheses of the theories that compose it, nucleus that is protected by a belt of auxiliary hypotheses and by the heuristics.

The heuristic principle consists in discouraging the work on incompatible scientific theories and stimulating the work with auxiliary hypotheses Silva, In this case, falsifiability can never overthrow the nucleus, but only in some auxiliary hypothesis that forms part of the protective belt Lakatos and Musgrave, The evaluation of the research programmes progressive when the changes in the auxiliary hypotheses that compose the protection belt give origin to the prediction of new facts.

A program is degenerative when the adjustments made in the protection belt do not present the possibility of predicting a new fact, or the forecast is not confirmed. According to Lakatos and Musgrave , p. This citation indicates a less severe and more flexible criterion as regards the deadline, since it is not an immediate conclusion for the evaluation of the programs.

In this context, scientific revolutions occur if there are two rival research programmes and one of them progresses while the other degenerates, leading the researchers to opt for the progressive program.

The following are the demarcation criteria in this paper Table 1 :. Although the scientific demarcation criteria of Popper and Lakatos are widely accepted, both authors were not exempt from harsh criticism, which, after all, is a salutary practice for the development of science.

A first caveat to be made was with regard to what was understood by the authors as a science, for many of their assumptions seemed essentially directed to the field of natural sciences, which was strongly denied by Popper. However, the fact that Popper had linked falsificationism to empirical tests of hypotheses related to concrete facts, made the Social Sciences seem to be relegated to the background. Lakatos has attempted to overcome this weakness by arguing that empirical tests of reality could not be the only counterfeit method, since once counterfeiting was not proven, this would not automatically imply acceptance of theory, hypothesis, or assumption, for the error could be in the own method used.

For Lakatos, the best solution would be to resort to logic, in which through the analysis of propositions, falsification could be found and this method would cover the previous one proposed by Popper Silva, Thus, many areas of knowledge in the social sciences field have passed and still pass by debates whose focus is to understand whether such areas may or may not be considered scientific, given the classical demarcation criteria.

In the field of Administration, for example, there are discussions about what has been produced, about the epistemological coherence of research and of its scientific nature. Another point of this analysis lies in the fact that the Administration uses research methods and techniques from other areas of knowledge Bunge, Albach addresses issues that prevent the Administration from being considered a science and points out the requirements that could make it a scientific area: revision of the types of enunciation and selection of objects of study, validity, objectivity and the possibility of re application by third parties.

Some other studies that came to debate the theme are listed in table 2 :. Table 2 Synthesis of studies that address the scientificity of Administration. From the studies cited, it is perceived that the debate still seems far from a consensus and this is not something restricted to the field of Administration.

In Economics, the discussion about its scientific nature and the need to follow a standard of norms is not very different either. Like most fields of knowledge, there is a concern with standardization in order to have valid results as is expected of a science field. However, some authors criticize this exacerbated concern, emphasizing that Economics should prioritize other issues Boldyrev, , p. There are authors who tend to analyse economics in order to produce a coherent conceptual model of scientific practice and amend the general philosophical ideas of scientific knowledge, causality etc.

Thus, some authors argue that, because Economics is a field of social knowledge, external philosophical questions should be relegated to the background. Boldyrev , p. Whenever one advances a normative account i. The same applies to the external criterion of truthfulness: if one can judge what is true, it means that the truth has been found and that one does not need to continue searching.

Of course, one must break this familiar circle […]. In any case, there is still no accepted understanding in the field of economics as to what would be the correct way to set aside external philosophical norms. For the time being, the criteria of Popper and Lakatos are still accepted by the great majority of scientific communities, since it still argues the need to define directions that are common to all Silva, With respect to the classical theories of innovation, in view of its trajectory, some of its properties also fit into the frameworks of scientificity analysis proposed by the classical theoreticians of the philosophy of science studied here: Popper and Lakatos.

The next sections proposed macro-themes of innovation in the light of contributions from the abovementioned authors, seeking where possible interpreting them. The idea of circular flow, predominant in the periods prior to Schumpeter, belongs to the current of thought of the neoclassical theory.

Approximately in the mid-nineteenth century, not only England, but much of the European continent was undergoing a phase of maturation and evolution of its industrialization process. Despite the innumerable implications of using innovations in the productive sphere, the prevailing theory still regarded technology as exogenous. The industrial dynamics of this period constituted the reference for the development of the neoclassical theory of nearly perfect competition and economic development.

Considering Walrasian general equilibrium theory, one of the first attempts by neoclassical economists to explain the dynamics of supply, demand and price formation for a complete economy, Weintraub identified what could be considered the irreducible nucleus of this specific theory, in addition to the positive heuristics and the negative heuristics, which according to Lakatos could form a research program, which can be verified in Table 3 :.

Table 3 Suggestion of composition of the research program of neoclassical microeconomic theory. Considering the lakatosian logic, while this irreducible nucleus remains intact, the research program remains valid. For the progress of economics, as a science, the researcher must be guided by heuristics. When changes occur in the auxiliary hypotheses heuristics capable of predicting new facts, Lakatos says that the program is progressive.

The microeconomic foundations highlighted - at the time - could be transplanted into the macro sphere. The first neoclassical author explaining macroeconomic growth was Solow In his model, he focuses on the causes of growth per capita : population growth would reduce the balance, savings would enable the increase of growth per capita , but not economic development as a whole.

The only way to enable sustainable growth, both per capita and total, would be technological development, which would take place exogenously Solow, It is valid to assert, then, that economic growth could only occur through the natural growth of the population and of aggregated savings, should a technology foreign to the industries not emerge. At the heart of economic neoclassical thinking, marked by the functionalist view of its epistemological paradigm, were the technicist and traditionalist visions.

This functionalist epistemological paradigm posited neoclassical perspective as a super-simplification of reality. Thus the more dynamic and organic visions of organizations as open systems in constant interaction with the surrounding environment and interacting with other already implanted organizations seem simply non-existant.

Sraffa posed solid questions about neoclassical theory, observing in some industrial configurations the presence of differentiated products, economies of scale, and consequently individual decreasing costs. The hypothesis raised by Schumpeter is that every development process rests on a preceding evolution, based on spontaneous and non-linear alterations that unbalance the state of the existing flow. This hypothesis contained in itself a content of corroboration superior to neoclassical theory Popper, Lekachman , p.

Briefly, the ruptures of the circular flow were, in the first instance, authored by the innovative entrepreneur who identified opportunities that emerged in the economic environment and undertook them.


What is good science?

En caso contrario, si todo es comprobado, se repite el proceso considerando otras consecuencias deducibles. Esto significa que deben ser suceptibles de ser falsadas. Una entrada muy interesante y me allegra que lo he leido sin buscar ningunas palabras en el diccionario. Voy a leer todas tus entradas en espanol de aqui entonces — necesito practicar mi espanol! Es una pena que mi teclado no me permite de poner los acentos y seguramente estoy haciendo errores de ortografia. Pero intentare!


David Miller

One of the 20th century's most influential philosophers of science , [14] [15] [16] Popper is known for his rejection of the classical inductivist views on the scientific method in favour of empirical falsification. According to Popper, a theory in the empirical sciences can never be proven, but it can be falsified, meaning that it can and should be scrutinised with decisive experiments. Popper was opposed to the classical justificationist account of knowledge, which he replaced with critical rationalism , namely "the first non-justificational philosophy of criticism in the history of philosophy". In political discourse, he is known for his vigorous defence of liberal democracy and the principles of social criticism that he believed made a flourishing open society possible. Karl Popper was born in Vienna then in Austria-Hungary in to upper-middle-class parents. All of Popper's grandparents were Jewish , but they were not devout and as part of the cultural assimilation process the Popper family converted to Lutheranism before he was born [18] [19] and so he received a Lutheran baptism.

Related Articles