“Negative heuristics” in cultural analysis

The mental space of each culture is like a comet, the “core” of which forms a set of dominant themes, and the “tail” consists of a set of derivative themes. The task of realizing the uniqueness of culture also raises the need for comparative cultural analysis, which in turn gives rise to a layer of “negative heuristics.” This term, introduced into the methodology of science by I. Lakatos, seems appropriate to use to designate a set of statements in conceptual constructs that record the differences between the culture being studied and others (most often exemplary, ancient Greek, Western European, ancient Indian, etc.), showing what value and mental orientations it does not possess. “Negative heuristics” performs an important positive function of understanding the uniqueness of a culture, and also allows one to avoid unlawful analogies and extrapolations, when, based on the similarity of a certain group of characteristics of the compared cultures, a conclusion is made about their unity in general or in other characteristics, for example, when talking about chivalry or "Renaissance era" in Russian culture.

A notable feature of the pagan spiritual culture of the Eastern Slavs is the absence of individualistically oriented value and mental orientations. The “naturalistic” perception of reality in relation to man captured only the physiological side of his existence. Therefore, a group of naturalistic values, of which “physical strength” was the defining one, outlined the horizon of the barbaric Slavic man. Concepts of honor, dignity, high value of human life, etc. inapplicable to a pagan Slav. They require a naturalistic interpretation. And this is understandable, because the horizon of any pagan culture is naturalistic values. The Eastern Slavs lived in a territory little studied by Western Europeans (on the maps of Western Europeans, the lands above the lower reaches of the Dnieper and Don are practically not marked, i.e., unknown). The Byzantine historian of the 6th century, Procopius of Caesarea, limited himself to describing only the coastal lands of the Euxine Pontus (i.e., the Black Sea), making a special reservation about the approximate nature of his information: “This is the circumference of Pontus of Eleusis from Kalchedon (Chalcedon) to Byzantium. But what is the size of this circle as a whole, “I cannot say this for sure, since so many, as I said, barbarian tribes live there, with whom the Romans, of course, have no communication, except for sending embassies.” Archaeological finds on the territory of Ukraine of coins, ceramics and other items of Greek and Byzantine origin may indicate not only the intensity of trade and cultural ties, but also the success of the predatory campaigns of the Slavs.

The pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs, like the Scythian one, turned out to be impervious to ancient and Byzantine cultural influences, bringing into consciousness the cult of high virtue (honor, loyalty, valor, etc.). Only the absence of the latter and the dominance of the thematic structure of “force”, “violence” and “passion” can explain the ferocious atrocities of the Slavs during predatory raids, as unanimously testified by Byzantine writers and historians from the 6th to the 11th centuries. One of the most vivid descriptions was left by Procopius of Caesarea: “The barbarians... took the city by force. They immediately killed up to fifteen thousand men and plundered their valuables, and enslaved children and women. At first they spared neither age nor gender; Both of these detachments, from the very moment they burst into the Roman region, killed everyone, indiscriminately, so that the entire land of Illyria and Thrace was covered with unburied bodies. They killed those who came their way not with swords or spears or any ordinary methods, but, having driven stakes firmly into the ground and making them as sharp as possible, they impaled these unfortunates on them with great force, making sure that the tip of this stake entered between the buttocks , and then under pressure [of the body] it penetrated into the insides of a person. This is how they considered it necessary to treat them... So at first the Slavs destroyed all the inhabitants they encountered. Now they and the barbarians from another detachment, as if drunk on a sea of ​​blood, began to take some of those they came across captive, and therefore everyone went home, taking with them countless tens of thousands of prisoners." "They (the Avars - V.M.) sent a tribe of Slavs, writes the Byzantine historian Theophylact Simocatta, and a huge expanse of Roman lands was devastated. The Slavs reached the so-called “Long Walls”, breaking through which they carried out a terrible massacre in front of everyone.” The description of such atrocities on the part of the Slavs is easy to continue.

Insufficient development of individualism, self-awareness, consciousness of one's own dignity as a moral, spiritual being is a general criterion of barbaric existence. The absence of these qualities in behavior is expressed in infidelity, treachery, cruelty, disorganization and indiscipline, etc. It is these properties that characterize the Slavs in Western European and Byzantine sources. “In general, they are insidious,” writes Pseudo-Mauritius, “and do not keep their word regarding contracts,” “... the Slavs are by nature unreliable and prone to evil, and therefore they should beware.”

Those barbarians who came into close contact with Christianity and the achievements of the ancient spirit experienced dramatic changes in a relatively short period of time. The Vandals, the destroyers of Rome, settled in northern Africa in Libya and quickly adopted the ancient way of life. “From the time they took possession of Libya, all the Vandals daily enjoyed baths and the most exquisite table, everything that only the best and tasty land and sea produces. They all mostly wore gold jewelry, dressing in Median dress, which is now called silk, spending time in theaters, on hippodromes and among other pleasures, especially being fond of hunting. They enjoyed good singing and performances of myths; all the pleasures that please the ear and sight were very common among them. In other words, everything that people have in "The area of ​​music and spectacle is considered the most attractive, they were in use. Most of them lived in parks rich in water and trees, they often held feasts among themselves and with great passion indulged in all the joys of Venus."

The Goths who settled the lands of the Apennine Peninsula underwent a deeper spiritual evolution. Their most famous king, Theodoric, writes Procopius of Caesarea, “was extremely concerned about justice and fairness, and strictly observed the execution of the laws; he protected the entire country intact from neighboring barbarians and thereby earned the highest glory for both wisdom and valor... By name Theodoric was a tyrant, a usurper of power, but in fact a real emperor, no lower than the most famous who bore this title from the very beginning; the love for him on the part of the Goths and Italians was enormous, unlike what usually happens among people.” After Theodoric's death, his grandson Atalaric assumed power. “As the guardian of her son, Amalazunta held power in her hands, standing out among everyone for her intelligence and justice.” “Amalazunta wanted her son to be completely similar in his way of life to the leaders of the Romans and even then forced him to attend a teacher’s school.” According to Procopius, after the death of Atalaric, power was seized by Theodatus, one of whose main aspirations was the study of philosophy, and he considered himself a follower of the Platonic school.

Of course, the softening of the morals of the Goths was greatly facilitated by their adoption of Christianity. However, analyzing the value-thematic structure of the speeches of the Gothic leaders, which are cited by Procopius of Caesarea (obviously, these speeches are not a transcript of actually spoken speeches; meanwhile, it seems that the general value-mental orientation is reproduced in them), there is no doubt that the determining motives The behavior of the Gothic elite were examples of the Greek and Roman humanistic spirit (valor, justice, honor, loyalty, etc.). In the highly humane, noble actions of the king of the Goths, Totila, the influence of ancient models is clearly visible. Let us give three illustrative examples. “When Totila took Naples, he showed so much humanity towards those who surrendered that this could not be expected either from an enemy or from a barbarian. Having found the Romans so exhausted by hunger that they no longer had any strength left in their bodies, fearing that, having suddenly pounced on food to the point of extreme satiety, they would suffocate, as usually happens, he came up with the following: placing a guard in the harbor and at the gate, he did not order anyone to leave there. He himself began to give everyone food in smaller quantities than they wanted, wisely showing a kind of stinginess in this, but every day he added so much to this norm that it was not felt that this increase was happening. Thus, he strengthened their strength, and then, opening the gates, he allowed each of them to go wherever he wanted." He gave horses and carts to the Byzantine warriors, the defenders of Naples, gave them money for the journey and allowed them to go by land to Rome , sending along with them some of the noblest Goths as guides.”

Below, Procopius of Caesarea gives another example of the nobility of Totila, which can be seen as a continuation of the best Roman traditions. When one of the Romans came to Totila and complained that one of his bodyguards had raped his daughter, a girl, the noblest of the Goths immediately came to him and asked him to forgive this man, because he was an energetic man and knowledgeable in military matters. Totila, in particular, answered them as follows: “I know very well that usually most people change the names of actions and actions and give them other meanings. They call philanthropy and gentleness the violation of laws, which results in the destruction of everything honest and good and general confusion; they usually call someone who wants to strictly follow the law an unpleasant and difficult person, so that, hiding behind these names, like a shield, it would be safer for them to show their licentiousness and indulge in debauchery... It is impossible, in no case impossible, that a criminal and rapist in life in battles he could show valor and luck, but the military happiness of each is determined by the personal life of each." After his words, the noblest of the Goths no longer began to ask him for his bodyguard. Soon he executed this man, after all, his money, which he had , he gave to the victim of his violence.

The third example is noteworthy. When Totila captured Rome, based on a military-strategic assessment of the situation, he decided to destroy it to the ground. Having learned about this, his main opponent, the most famous Byzantine commander Belisarius, sent envoys to Totila with a letter. Its content was as follows: “As much as creating new decorations for a city is the work and characteristic of intelligent people who understand social life, so destroying what exists is characteristic of stupid people who are not ashamed to leave these noticeable signs of their [wild] nature for a later time. Of all the cities that are under the sun, Rome, by the unanimous recognition of all, is the largest and most remarkable. It was not created by the valiant forces of one person and not by the power of a short time that brought it to such size and beauty: a whole series of kings and emperors, whole great alliances and the joint work of outstanding people, a long series of years and the presence of innumerable riches, everything that is only wonderful on earth, they gathered all this here and especially people experienced in art and construction. Thus, little by little creating this wonderful city that you see, they left monuments for descendants valor of all generations. So, any violence committed against them will be considered a great crime against people of all ages, and rightly so: this will deprive previous generations of the memory of their valor, and those who come after them, the joy of contemplating these creations. In this state of affairs, be sure to know the following. One of two things must inevitably happen: either you will be defeated by the emperor in this war, or, if this happens, you will prevail. So, if you win, then, by destroying Rome, you will destroy, my dear, not someone else’s, but your own property, preserving it, you will be enriched with wealth, naturally, the most beautiful of all. If you are destined to suffer a more difficult fate, then by preserving Rome unharmed, you will retain great gratitude from the victor; but if you destroy him, there will be no point in talking about mercy. Add that this matter will not be of any use to you. And then among all people the glory of your deed will remain for you; she is ready to pronounce her decision on you in both directions. Whatever the affairs of rulers, such a name is necessarily assigned to them." Totila read this letter more than once... He understood its justice and did nothing else to harm Rome. It is curious that Belisarius soon recaptured Rome, significantly worsening the situation of the Goths. In general, comparing the actions and way of thinking of Totila with the Emperor Justinian and his main commander Belisarius (especially if we take into account the book of Procopius of Caesarea “The Secret History”), who considered themselves and were officially recognized as heirs of the high Greek and Roman traditions of nobility, valor, justice, etc. .p., then the advantage will certainly be on the side of the “barbarian” Totila.

In cultural studies, one can formulate a “universal cultural law” that operates unambiguously and inevitably, like Newton’s laws: “every culture, discovering (or rediscovering) the culture of antiquity, necessarily experiences a rise in spirituality and humanism, which forms a kind of “Renaissance.” Another formulation of this “law” is possible: “in any rise of spirituality and humanism in the cultures of the European region, the direct influence of ancient culture must necessarily be one of the components of the necessary reasons.”

In one of the most charming periods of spiritual growth in Russian culture, the “Pushkin era” (especially from the beginning of the 19th century until 1826), the most important circumstance was the craze for antiquity. In Russian culture, if we can talk about the “Renaissance era,” it is only in relation to this period. The most important circumstance in the “negative heuristics” in the pagan culture of the Slavs (including the Eastern ones) was the disorder of everyday life, largely indifference to external arrangement, improvement of life, and a disdainful attitude towards it, which would later receive the stable label of philistinism. We also find the origins of this tradition in the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs.

Let us again turn to Procopius of Caesarea: “They live in miserable huts, at a great distance from each other, and they all often change their places of residence... Their way of life, like that of the Massagetae, is rough, without any amenities, they are always covered with dirt, but essentially they are not bad and not at all evil, but retain Hunnic morals in all their purity.” The life of the Slavs was spent in constant anticipation of danger from other tribes (most often nomads from the forest-steppe zone). Pseudo-Mauritius notes: “They settle in forests, near inconvenient rivers, swamps and lakes, arrange many exits in their homes due to the dangers that naturally occur. They bury the things they need in hiding places, do not openly own anything unnecessary and carry wandering life."

Western European sources note this feature of the life of the Western, Baltic Slavic tribes until the 12th century. "...They do not bother themselves with the construction of houses, preferring to weave themselves huts from twigs, prompted to this only by the need to protect themselves from storms and rains. And whenever the cry of military alarm is heard, they hide in pits everything that they have already cleared from chaff, grain and gold, and silver, and all kinds of jewelry. Women and children are hidden in fortresses or at least in forests, so that the enemy has nothing left to plunder - only huts, the loss of which they consider easy for themselves." . “Foreign writers speak,” writes S.M. Solovyov, - that the Slavs lived in crappy huts located at a far distance from each other, and often changed their place of residence. Such fragility and frequent changes of dwellings were a consequence of the continuous danger that threatened the Slavs both from their own tribal strife and from the invasions of alien peoples... The same cause, operating for a long time, produced the same consequences; life in constant anticipation of enemy attacks continued for the Eastern Slavs even when they were already under the rule of the princes of Rurik at home... The habit of being content with little and always being ready to leave their home supported the Slav’s aversion to the foreign yoke."

The pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs could be characterized as a culture of original inconsistency, “strain.” Apparently, inconsistency is the most effective way to describe the Slavic soul as a contradictory, torn value-thought structure. Indeed, the spiritual world of the pagan Slavs is constituted, on the one hand, by an uncontrollable thirst for individual freedom, and on the other, by the lack of value of individuality. On the one hand, the absolute dominance of barbaric naturalism, and on the other, its denial, a strange rejection of the material order of life. On the one hand, there is ferocious cruelty during bandit raids; on the other hand, softened forms of slavery, hospitality surprising for all foreigners. "...Hospitality and care for parents occupy first place among the Slavs among the virtues." The inconsistency of being is probably the most optimal form of expressing the state of the Slavic soul as a value-mental structure, because simply referring to the “soul”, the spirit of the people, its “irrational” character over the past two centuries have proven themselves to be unfruitful concepts. It seemed that they denoted something deep, primordial, fundamental. In fact, the use of these terms expresses the limit of philosophical understanding, the throwing into the irrational of the most important, most interesting problems, the recognition of the inability for further theoretical analysis. In philosophy and cultural studies, the analysis of any phenomenon is subject to description in the form of theoretical objects. If the concepts of “soul” and “spirit” of the people have not found expression in the form of theoretical constructs, “idealized theoretical objects”, “ideal types”, then we can confidently assume that they have not yet found a theoretical description.

Thus, on the one hand, the generous productivity of the surrounding nature and low population density created favorable conditions for life, on the other hand, the constant threat from the steppe and nomadic pastoralists - all this contributed to the formation of a unique culture and its spatial configuration, in which there were no incentives to persistent systematic work, improvement of life and way of life, and at the same time barbarism acquired softened forms (the absence of a rigid cult of leaders, a caste system, a warlike character, a rigid system of taboos, the custom of killing crippled newborn children and elderly parents, the relative freedom of women, etc.).

The third important feature of the “negative heuristics” of the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs is its “existential” character. The pagan culture of the ancient Slavs is a purely “existential” culture, which has two distinctive features: the absence of the need and opportunity for transcendence and self-construction. That is, on the one hand, it is characterized by the attachment of guidelines and values ​​to the sphere of cash existence, the absence of aspiration to go beyond its limits into a created more perfect, well-organized material world or into an intelligible higher spiritual world; people’s life activities are carried out in a sensory environment predetermined primarily by the natural environment. material space. On the other hand, fragmentary information about the life of the Slavs shows an amazing amorphousness, uncertainty, disorder of the social structure, religious life, and the entire way of life. This means that in the tribal communities of the Polyans, Drevlyans, Krivichi, etc., social mechanisms of stabilization and ordering of the social organism were poorly developed, and self-constructive activity was practically absent.

It was a complete culture of strength, dexterity, daring, immediate feelings and passions, and spiritual breadth. In joy and in suffering, this culture was not burdened with reflection, did not close its gaze on itself. Engagement in agriculture and trends towards a sedentary lifestyle created the prerequisites for the formation of a “reflexive” type of culture from below (the development of material production, the growth of the division of labor and social differentiation, etc.). However, these processes were undermined, disrupted, and slowed down by external and internal destabilizing factors. Therefore, the character of the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs turned out to be dual: on the one hand, converted, completely immersed in sensory-material cash existence, and on the other hand, the Slavic culture, as if decimated, was deprived of its root support in the same sensory-material cash existence. Probably, the resolution of this conflict was expressed in an increased orientation towards the present, immediate experience and a focus on immediate concerns and goals.

Concluding our consideration of the pagan culture of the Eastern Slavs, let us highlight two important points. Firstly, in this culture the process of individualization of the Slavs, leading to the isolation of the individual, did not develop. Secondly, in the thematic space of pagan culture, there was probably no theme of pan-Slavic unity. It seems that the horizons of the Eastern Slavs ended at the border of clan and tribe.

In preparing this work, materials from the site www.studentu.ru were used

Program effectiveness

Regarding this parameter of the latter, Lakatos notes that, firstly, a scientist should not abandon a research program if it is not working effectively: such refusal is not a universal rule.

Secondly, he suggests that “the methodology of research programs could help us formulate laws that would stand in the way of the origins of the intellectual turbidity that threatens to flood our cultural environment even before industrial waste and automobile fumes spoil the physical environment of our a habitat".

Third, Lakatos believes that understanding science as a battlefield of research programs rather than individual theories suggests a new criterion of demarcation between "mature science" consisting of research programs and "immature science" consisting of "the well-worn pattern of trial and error." mistakes."

Fourth, “we can evaluate research programs even after they have been eliminated by their heuristic power: how much new evidence they produce, how much power they have to explain refutations as they grow.”

Positive and negative heuristics

This issue has already been touched upon above; here we will make some additions. In one of its definitions, heuristics is understood as a method, or methodological discipline, the subject of which is solving problems under conditions of uncertainty. The field of heuristics includes imprecise methodological regulations, and its main problem is resolving contradictions that arise in science. Heuristic (creative) methods for solving problems are usually contrasted with formal solution methods based on precise mathematical models.

From the point of view of Lakatos and some other Western methodologists, heuristics are characterized by guesswork, limiting the scope of search through the analysis of goals, means and materials, attempts to integrate thinking and sensory perception, consciousness and the unconscious. “The program is made up of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristics), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristics)” .

At the same time, Lakatos believes that, firstly, “the positive heuristics of a research program can also be formulated as a “metaphysical (i.e., philosophical - V.K.) principle.” Secondly, “positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones.” Third, it is necessary to “separate the ‘hard core’ from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.” Fourth, “positive heuristics play the first violin in the development of a research program.” Fifth, “positive and negative heuristics together provide a rough (implicit) definition of the “conceptual framework” (and hence language).”

Thus, positive heuristics are methodological rules that promote the positive development of research programs. These rules dictate which paths to follow in further research. Positive heuristics include a series of assumptions about how to modify or develop refutable versions of the research program, how to modernize or clarify the “safety belt,” and what new models should be developed to expand the scope of the program.

Negative heuristics are a set of methodological rules that limit the many possible paths of research, allowing one to avoid roundabout or wrong paths towards the truth. She proposes inventing auxiliary hypotheses that form a “safety belt” around the “hard core” of a research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced entirely when confronted with counterexamples.

Positive and negative heuristics.

This issue has already been touched upon above; here we will make some additions.

In one of its definitions, heuristics is understood as a method, or methodological discipline, the subject of which is solving problems under conditions of uncertainty. The field of heuristics includes imprecise methodological regulations, and its main problem is resolving contradictions that arise in science.

Heuristic (creative) methods for solving problems are usually contrasted with formal solution methods based on precise mathematical models. From the point of view of Lakatos and some other Western methodologists, heuristics are characterized by guesswork, limiting the scope of search through the analysis of goals, means and materials, attempts to integrate thinking and sensory perception, consciousness and the unconscious. “The program is made up of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristics), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristics).” At the same time, Lakatos believes that, firstly, “the positive heuristics of a research program can also be formulated as a “metaphysical (i.e., philosophical - V.K.) principle.” Secondly, “positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones.” Third, it is necessary to “separate the ‘hard core’ from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.” Fourth, “positive heuristics play the first violin in the development of a research program.” Fifth, “positive and negative heuristics together provide a rough (implicit) definition of the “conceptual framework” (and hence language).”1 Thus, positive heuristics are methodological rules that promote the positive development of research programs.

These rules dictate which paths to follow in further research.

Positive heuristics include a series of assumptions about how to modify or develop refutable versions of the research program, how to modernize or clarify the “safety belt,” and what new models should be developed to expand the scope of the program.

Negative heuristics are a set of methodological rules that limit the many possible paths of research, allowing one to avoid roundabout or wrong paths towards the truth.

She proposes to invent auxiliary hypotheses that form a "safety belt" around the "hard core" of the research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced completely when confronted with counterexamples.

End of work -

This topic belongs to the section:

Methodology of I. Lakatos’ research programs

In his early works (of which the most famous is “Proofs and Refutations”), Lakatos proposed a version of the logic of conjecture and refutation. The line of analysis of the processes of change and development of knowledge continues then. Let us outline the main points of this concept. 1. The main idea of ​​the Lakatos concept and its purpose. Lakatos himself looked at his...

If you need additional material on this topic, or you did not find what you were looking for, we recommend using the search in our database of works:

What will we do with the received material:

If this material was useful to you, you can save it to your page on social networks:

In his studies of the nature of scientific discovery, Imre Lakatos introduced the concepts of positive and negative heuristic. Within a scientific school, certain rules prescribe which paths to follow in further reasoning. These rules form positive heuristics. Other rules tell you which paths to avoid. This is a Negative Heuristic.

EXAMPLE. « Positive heuristics" of a research program can also be formulated as a "metaphysical principle". For example, Newton's program can be stated in the following formula: “The planets are rotating tops of approximately spherical shape, attracted to each other.” No one has ever followed this principle exactly: planets have not only gravitational properties, they have, for example, electromagnetic characteristics that affect movement. Therefore, positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones. Moreover, it happens from time to time that when a research program enters a regressive phase, a small revolution or creative push in its positive heuristics can again move it towards a progressive shift. Therefore, it is better to separate the “hard core” from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.”

I. Lakatos, Methodology of research programs, M., “AST”, “Ermak”, 2003, p. 83.

• 36 plots by J. Polti (the author proposed 36 plots to which famous plays are reduced. Numerous attempts to supplement this list only confirmed the correctness of the original classification).

This issue has already been touched upon above; here we will make some additions. In one of its definitions, heuristics is understood as a method, or methodological discipline, the subject of which is solving problems under conditions of uncertainty. The field of heuristics includes imprecise methodological regulations, and its main problem is resolving contradictions that arise in science. Heuristic (creative) methods for solving problems are usually contrasted with formal solution methods based on precise mathematical models.

From the point of view of Lakatos and some other Western methodologists, heuristics are characterized by guesswork, limiting the scope of search through the analysis of goals, means and materials, attempts to integrate thinking and sensory perception, consciousness and the unconscious. “The program is made up of methodological rules: some of them are rules indicating which research paths should be avoided (negative heuristics), the other part are rules indicating which paths should be chosen and how to follow them (positive heuristics)” 2.

At the same time, Lakatos believes that, firstly, “the positive heuristic of the research program can also be formulated as “metaphysical (i.e. philosophical. - VC.) principle". Secondly, “positive heuristics are, generally speaking, more flexible than negative ones.” Third, it is necessary to “separate the ‘hard core’ from the more flexible metaphysical principles that express positive heuristics.” Thursday

1 Lakatos I. Methodology of scientific research programs // Questions of Philosophy. 1995. No. 4. P. 138. 2 Ibid. P. 148.

tykh, “positive heuristics play the first violin in the development of a research program.” Fifth, "positive and negative heuristics together provide a rough (implicit) definition of the 'conceptual framework' (and hence language)" 1 .

Thus, positive heuristics are methodological rules that promote the positive development of research programs. These rules dictate which paths to follow in further research. Positive heuristics include a series of assumptions about how to modify or develop refutable versions of the research program, how to modernize or clarify the “safety belt,” and what new models should be developed to expand the scope of the program.

Negative heuristics are a set of methodological rules that limit the many possible paths of research, allowing one to avoid roundabout or wrong paths towards the truth. She proposes inventing auxiliary hypotheses that form a “safety belt” around the “hard core” of a research program, which must be adapted, modified, or even replaced entirely when confronted with counterexamples.