Mathieson I
Wales Centre for Podiatric Studies, University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Clin Podiatr Med Surg. 2001 Oct;18(4):691-702, vi.
Substantial evidence suggests that complete rejection of the Root model may be premature, given the inherent logic in an Aristotelian interpretation of its core philosophy. Although critics have focused on a Platonic interpretation of Root's criteria for normalcy and surrounding theories, recent theoretic shifts towards a more flexible view of the factors which can combine to produce pathologic conditions suggest that the Root model retains usefulness. Although it has been suggested that Kuhn's approach may contain a destructive element, one of its propositions--that a phase of normal science is characterized by a common vision of the research required within the paradigm--seems to hold the key to the future success of podiatric biomechanics. The approach of Lakatos seems to provide the required "modicum of self-confidence which enables us to live and practice" to smooth the transition between established and emergent approaches. Although the approaches of Kuhn and Lakatos remain incommensurable, it is certain that Kuhn would agree with one particularly relevant comment by Lakatos, that "blind commitment to a theory is not an intellectual virtue: it is an intellectual crime."
大量证据表明，鉴于对其核心哲学的亚里士多德式解读中存在的内在逻辑，完全摒弃鲁特模型可能为时过早。尽管批评者一直关注对鲁特正常标准及相关理论的柏拉图式解读，但最近理论上转向对可共同导致病理状况的因素持更灵活的观点，这表明鲁特模型仍有用处。尽管有人认为库恩的方法可能包含破坏性因素，但其主张之一——即常规科学阶段的特征是对范式内所需研究有共同愿景——似乎是足病生物力学未来成功的关键。拉卡托斯的方法似乎提供了所需的“适度自信，使我们能够生活和实践”，以顺利实现既定方法与新兴方法之间的过渡。尽管库恩和拉卡托斯的方法仍然不可通约，但可以肯定的是，库恩会同意拉卡托斯的一条特别相关的评论，即“盲目信奉一种理论并非智力美德：而是智力犯罪”。
