More probable is that choices are directed by individual experiences. In other words: they depend on the research fields. That way unwillingly Lakatos continued the thoughts of Kuhn, the man that he criticized. He adds to paradigms the property of eternal existence, just waiting for discovery. Not a denial of paradigms, but proposing that these in limitless amounts always passively are there, and that depending on the research field it is possible that weird ones are chosen. This looks like restoring the continuity of science, in the tradition of Popper. But suddenly a different view can make up for a severe shock. In a hidden way the different views were always there, but their sudden discovery can change the then present view revolutionary. That is exactly what Kuhn tried to say, and Lakatos did nothing more than mimicking using different and difficult words. The continuity he thought to have restored only exists in an endless limit, in which all visions are available. Human existence though remains limited. Mathematically Lakatos made a statement about the behaviour of paradigms as a limit. Besides philosophy he studied physics and math. In these sciences it is not unusual as part of the research field to study such behaviour. Theoretically his observation is interesting, but in practice useless (not saying anything negative about the philosopher Lakatos). More sence makes his criticism towards Popper, that denying statements without looking at their underlying presemptions has no real value, (though this is no surprise). His real 'value' was fanatically defending rationalism.