ABSTRACT
This chapter presents and analyzes Nancey Murphy's appropriation of Imre Lakatos's philosophy, and looks at the adequacy of his philosophy on its own terms and its suitability as a theological method. Imre Lakatos's biography sheds considerable light on his philosophy. There are two pieces of biographical information that help to explain the general orientation of Lakatos's work in the philosophy of science. The first is his disillusionment with the totalitarian excesses of Communist Hungary. The second context for Lakatos's work was the debate between Karl Popper and Kuhn over the nature of scientific knowledge. Lakatos's philosophy is significant because it represents a new direction in Anglo-American philosophy of science. The most significant criticism of Lakatos's work centers on whether he was truly able to reconcile the projects of Popper and Kuhn. Murphy's appropriation of Lakatos's scientific methodology means that almost all of the same criticisms that apply against his position also apply against hers.
