David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Perspectives on Science 9 (4):405-422 (2001)
: Important to Kuhn's account of scientific change is the observation that when paradigms are in competition with one another, there is a curious breakdown of rational argument and communication between adherents of competing programs. He attributed this to the fact that competing paradigms are incommensurable. The incommensurability thesis centrally involves the claim that there is a deep conceptual gap between competing paradigms in science. In this paper I argue that in one important case of competing paradigms, the Aristotelian explanation of the properties of bodies in terms of matter and form as opposed to the Cartesian mechanist paradigm, where the properties of bodies are explained on the model of machines, there was no such conceptual gap: the notion of a machine was as fully intelligible on the Aristotelian paradigm as it was on the Cartesian. But this does not mean that the debate between the two sides was conducted on purely rational terms. Rational argument breaks down not because of Kuhnian incommensurability, I argue, but because of other cultural factors separating the two camps
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
Gary Brown (1991). The Evolution of the Term "Mixed Mathematics". Journal of the History of Ideas 52:81-102.
Didier Kahn (2001). Entre Atomisme, Alchimie Et Théologie: La Réception des Thèses d'Antoine de Villon Et Étienne de Clave Contre Aristote, Paracelse Et les 'Cabalistes' (24-25 Août 1624). [REVIEW] Annals of Science 58 (3):241-286.
Citations of this work BETA
Vasso Kindi (2005). The Relation of History of Science to Philosophy of Science in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Kuhn's Later Philosophical Work. Perspectives on Science 13 (4):495-530.
Similar books and articles
Jeff Coulter (1995). Conceptual Transformations. Sociological Theory 13 (2):163-177.
B. Pourciau (2000). Intuitionism as a (Failed) Kuhnian Revolution in Mathematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 31 (2):297-329.
William H. Austin (1972). Paradigms, Rationality, and Partial Communication. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 3 (2):203-218.
A. Polikarov (1993). Is There an Incommensurability Between Superseding Theories? On the Validity of the Incommensurability Thesis. Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 24 (1):127 - 146.
Gerald Doppelt (1978). Kuhn's Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense. Inquiry 21 (1-4):33 – 86.
Mark A. Stone (1991). A Kuhnian Model of Falsifiability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (2):177-185.
K. Brad Wray (2007). Kuhnian Revolutions Revisited. Synthese 158 (1):61-73.
Stefan Dragulinescu (2011). Kuhnian Paradigms: On Meaning and Communication Breakdown in Medicine. [REVIEW] Medicine Studies 2 (4):245-263.
Edwin H. -C. Hung (2001). Kuhnian Paradigms as Representational Spaces: New Perspectives on the Problems of Incommensurability, Scientific Explanation, and Physical Necessity. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 15 (3):275 – 292.
Gerald Doppelt (1980). Ii. A Reply to Siegel on Kuhnian Relativism. Inquiry 23 (1):117 – 123.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads116 ( #14,313 of 1,699,807 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #161,079 of 1,699,807 )
How can I increase my downloads?