![]() ![]() Tang I shall argue that the unit of scientific development is paradigm shift and not Kuhnian revolutions. I shall argue that the latest major theoretical construct in physics, the string theory, which has resulted in a powerful theoretico-logico-mathematical construct on the one hand, and theoretical constraints of empirical inaccessibility, predictive incapacity, as well as implicit underdetermination on the other, might quality as a paradigm shift in the spirit of the early Kuhn‘s thoughts on paradigms. We will present four different explanatory concepts of revolutions – Kuhn's, Thagard's, Chen's and Barker's, and Laudan's – and point to the ways in which each of them can be further specified in view of our concept. On the other hand, our concept can serve as the basis on which these conceptions can be further specified. On the one hand, our concept can be used to test the preciseness and accuracy of the these conceptions, by examining to what extent their criteria fit revolutions as they are defined by our concept. The aim of this paper is to offer such a concept, and to show that it can be fruitfully used for a further elaboration of the explanatory conceptions of revolutions. In this paper we show that such “explanatory concepts” of revolutions should be distinguished from a concept based on the identification criteria of scientific revolutions. Wray, The atomic number revolution in chemistry: a Kuhnian analysis, Foundations of Chemistry, 20, 209–217, 2018.Conceptualizing scientific revolutions by means of explicating their causes, their underlying structure and implications has been an important part of Kuhn's philosophy of science and belongs to its legacy. Thyssen, Identical or Distinct? The Debate between Paneth,von Hevesy and Fajans on the Nature of Isotopes (in press). Sheffler, Science and Subjectivity, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, IN, 1967. Hacking, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1981. Shapere, Meaning and Scinetific Change, in Scientific Revolutions ed. Shapere, The Structure of Scientifc Revolutions, Philosophcal Review, 73, 383-94, 1964. Wray (ed.), Interpreting Kuhn, Cambridge University Press, 2021. Chemistry, A Commentary on Wray’s claim of the discovery of atomic number as a revolution in chemistry, in B. Scerri, Reassessing the Notion of a Kuhnian Revolution: What Happened in 20th C. Journal for the General Philosophy of Science, 51, 427–445, 2020. E.R., Scerri, On Chemical Natural Kinds.Scerri, The Periodic Table, Its Story and Its Significance, Oxford University Press, New York, 2019. W.V.O., Quine, Word and Object (New ed.).Putnam, Reason, Truth and History, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. McCulloch, The Game of the Name: Introducing Logic, Language and Mind, 1st Edition, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1989. Mizrahi (ed.), The Kuhnian Image of Science, Rowman & Littlefield, New York, 155-173, 2018. Marcum, Revolution or Evolution in Science? A Role for the Incommensurability Thesis? in M. T.S., Kuhn, The Road Since Structure, Philosophical Essays 1970-1993, Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2000.1990, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1990), pp. T.S., Kuhn, 1990, The Road Since Structure, PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol.Kitcher, Theories, Theorists and Theoretical Change, Philosophical Review, 87, 519-47, 1978. One Chemical Revolution or Three? Journal of Chemical Education, 75, 8, 961-969, 1998. Jensen, Logic, History, and the Teaching of Chemistry: III. ![]() Daston (eds.), Chicago University Press, Chicago, 2016. Garber, Why the Scientific Revolution Wasn’t a Scientific Revolution, and Why it Matters, in Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty, R.J. Garber, Incommensurabilities, Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, Vol. Davidson, Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001, pp. ![]() Davidson, The Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme, in D. Boyd, Realism, anti-foundationalism and the enthusiasm for natural kinds. Bokulich, Pluto and the Planet Problem: Folk Concepts and Natural Kinds in Astronomy, Perspectives on Science, 22, 4, 464-490, 2014. Blumenthal, Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution: a re-assessment, Foundations of Chemistry 15, 93–101, 2013. Bird, Kuhn’s wrong turning, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 33, 443-463, 2002. Chen, The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |