David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy of Science 38 (4):467-485 (1971)
In this article I discuss the justification of scientific change and argue that it rests on different sorts of invariance. Against this background I consider notions of observation, meaning, and regulative standards. I sketch an account of the rationale of scientific change which preserves the merits and avoids the shortcomings of the approach of Feyerabend, Hanson, Kuhn, Toulmin, and others. Each of these writers would hold that transitions from one scientific tradition to another force radical changes in what is observed, in the meanings of the terms employed, and in the metastandards involved. They would claim that "incommensurable" replacement is what does, and should, occur during scientific "revolutions." Such writers, however, have trouble in comparing different scientific theories. My account permits different theories to be compared in various ways. These comparisons, I argue, are possible through appeal to "first-level" and "second-level" invariance. In this connection I argue that observation, meaning, and regulative standards should be, and in fact usually are, nontrivially invariant with respect to scientific change
|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
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Devitt (1979). Against Incommensurability. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57 (1):29 – 50.
Paul E. Meehl (1992). The Miracle Argument for Realism: An Important Lesson to Be Learned by Generalizing From Carrier's Counter-Examples. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 23 (2):267-282.
Michael Devitt (1979). Against Incommensurability. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 57 (1):29-50.
Similar books and articles
Jarrett Leplin (1986). Methodological Realism and Scientific Rationality. Philosophy of Science 53 (1):31-51.
Vasso Kindi (2011). The Challenge of Scientific Revolutions: Van Fraassen's and Friedman's Responses. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (4):327-349.
Hans Halvorson (2012). What Scientific Theories Could Not Be. Philosophy of Science 79 (2):183-206.
Otavio Bueno & Newton da Costa (2007). Quasi-Truth, Paraconsistency, and the Foundations of Science. Synthese 154 (3):383 - 399.
Jesús P. Zamora Bonilla (2003). Meaning and Testability in the Structuralist Theory of Science. Erkenntnis 59 (1):47 - 76.
S. K. Arun Murthi & Sundar Sarukkai (2009). Multisemiosis and Incommensurability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3):297-311.
William P. Bechtel (forthcoming). The Epistemology of Evidence in Cognitive Neuroscience. In R. Skipper Jr, C. Allen, R. A. Ankeny, C. F. Craver, L. Darden, G. Mikkelson & and R. Richardson (eds.), Philosophy and the Life Sciences: A Reader. MIT Press
Harold I. Brown (1983). Incommensurability. Inquiry 26 (1):3 – 29.
K. Brad Wray (2007). Kuhnian Revolutions Revisited. Synthese 158 (1):61-73.
Peter Galle (1983). Kordig's Paradox Objection to Radical Meaning Variance Theories. Philosophy of Science 50 (3):494-497.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads25 ( #153,322 of 1,902,212 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #205,335 of 1,902,212 )
How can I increase my downloads?