Editorial
Authors
1 Associate Professor, Esfahan University
2 .A. Student, Esfahan University
Abstract
To survive, each and every theory needs to be in harmony with temporal and spatial requirements. For the same reason, it should undergo some developments. In development of a theory, the main hypotheses should be retained; and no harm should affect its origins. Development should be, on the other hand, such that a theory may come to agreement with its own temporal and spatial circumstances. This very point is observed in Lakatos's methodology. Imre Lakatos is among philosophers who are working in the field of philosophy of science. He criticizes Popper's methodology. In Popper's falsifiability, one attempts to somehow falsify theories. Then, the falsified theories should be discarded and replaced by new ones. According to Lakatos, Popper's falsifiability tries to show a way to judge between two rival theories. He, thus, provides a methodology other than Popper's one. Lakatos's methodology is based on negative heuristic and positive heuristic.
The authors of the present article seek to get some insight from Lakatos's methodology so that, based on it, they can study development of the jurists' theory of appointive authority into Imam Khomeini's absolute authority of the jurist. The main points in Lakatos's methodology from which the authors try to get some insight are negative heuristic and positive heuristic. Thus, the authors do not try to analyze Lakatos's methodology and apply it to the jurists' theory of authority. Having inspired by Lakatos's methodology, we suffice to study development and evolution of the jurists' theory of appointive authority into Imam Khomeini's absolute theory of authority.
Keywords
)