"Philosophy of science without history of science is empty; history of science without philosophy of science is blind"

Imre Lakatos emphasizes the interdependence of philosophy of science and the history of science, arguing that each discipline requires the other for a full understanding of scientific development. Philosophy of science, with its focus on the logic, methods, and justification of scientific practices, offers a normative framework, it asks how science ought to proceed, what counts as evidence, rational explanation, or scientific progress. However, if philosophy abstracts scientific rationality into ahistorical ideals and ignores how real scientists actually conduct their work, it risks becoming detached from the realities of scientific practice. It may prescribe standards that are either irrelevant or unrealistic based on an incomplete picture gleamed only from logical analysis or thought experiments.

Conversely, the study of the history of science, which reconstructs the actual sequence of scientific discoveries, controversies, and paradigm shifts, can illuminate the full diversity, contingency, and sometimes chaotic nature of scientific change. However, a purely historical account can become a chronicle of events, a record of who did what and when, without a conceptual framework to interpret these developments or interrogate what counts as a scientific advance, or how theories are evaluated and replaced. Lacking philosophical analysis, history becomes “blind” because it lacks criteria by which to judge significance, to distinguish between central and peripheral episodes in science, or to formulate general patterns.

Lakatos thus contends that philosophy and history of science are not mutually exclusive, but each finds its true power through engaging with the other. Philosophy derives richness and relevance from the empirical and concrete case studies offered by history; historical research, in turn, gains clarity and purpose from philosophical concepts. Only through an integrated approach can we meaningfully grasp both the normative ideals and messy realities of scientific progress, enabling a deeper, more critical understanding of how science actually evolves and why it matters.