مسائل و مشکلات روش شناختی برنامۀ پژوهشی در ارزیابی روش شناسی های تاریخ اندیشۀ سیاسی

1. Ball, Terence (1976), “From Paradigms To Research Programes: Toward a Post-Kuhnian Political Science”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 20, No. 1, PP. 151-177.

2. Chalmers, A. F. (1999), 3Edit, What is this thing called Sciense?. United kingdom:  Open University Press.

3. Hacking, Ian (1979), “Imre Lakatos’s Phliosophy of Science”, The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science, Vol. 30, No. 4, PP. 381-402.

4. Lakatos, Imre (1963-4), Proofs and Refutations, eds. by J. Worrall & E. Zahar, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

5.------------------- (1968a), “Changes in The Problem of Inductive Logic”. in The Problem of Inductive Logic. Vol 2, pp. 315-417. ed. By Imre Lakatos. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.

6.------------------- (1968b), “Criticism and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes”, Proceeding of The Aristotelian Society, New Series. Vol. 69.

7.------------------- (1968c), “Falsification and Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes” in Criticism and The Growth Of Knowledge, eds. by I. Lakatos & A. Musgrave, New York: Cambridge University Press.

8.--------------- (1970), “Replies to Critics”, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Pholosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1970, PP. 174-182.

9.---------------- & Zahar, Elie (1975), “Why Did Copernicus’ Research Program Supersede Ptolemy’s?”. in The Copernican Achivement. ed. by  R. Westman. The United States of America: University of California Press.

10.---------------- & Feyerabend, Paul (1999), For and Against: Including Lakatos’s Lectures On Scientific Method and The Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, ed and with an intro by Matteo Motterlini. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

11. Larvor, Brendan (1998), Lakatos: An Introduction, New York: Routledge press.

12. Losee, John (2004), Theories of Scientific Progress, An Introduction. New York and London: Routledge.

13. Musgrave, Alen (1974), “Logical Versus Historical Theories of Confirmation”, The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 1-23.

14. -------------------- (1976), “Method and Madness”, in Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos. Eds. by R. S. Cohen, P. Feyerabend & M. W. Wartofsky. Dordrecht-Holland: Rcidel Publishing Company.

15. Nickles, Thomas (1987), “Lakatosian Heuristics and Epistemic Support”, The British Journal For The Philosophy of Science, Vol. 38, No. 2, pp. 181-205.

16. Vasquez, John (2003), “Kuhn Versus Lakatos? The case for Multiple Fames in Appraising Inyernational Relations Theory” in Progress In International Relations Theory, Appraising the Field, eds. by Colin Elman And Miriam Fendius Elman. Foreword By Kenneth Waltz, U. S. A: MIT Press.

17. Worrall, John (1978a), “The Ways in Which The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes Improves On Popper’s Methodology”. in Progress and Rationality in Science, Vol. 58, pp. 45-70, eds. by G. Radnitzky and G. Andersoon. Dordrecht-Holland: Rcidel Publishing Company.

18.-------------- (1978b), “Research Programmes, Empirical Support, and Duhem Problem: Replies To Criticism”, in Progress and Rationality in Science, Vol. 58, eds. by G. Radnitzky and G. Andersoon. Dordrecht-Holland: Rcidel Publishing Company.

19. Zahar, Elie (1973), “Why Did Einstein’s Programme Supersede Lorentz’s?”, The British Journal for The Philosophy of Science, Vol. 24, No. 2, pp. 95-123.