Graduate studies at Western
Journal for General Philosophy of Science 30 (2):201-232 (1999)
|Abstract||The question whether Kuhn's theory of scientific revolutions could be applied to mathematics caused many interesting problems to arise. The aim of this paper is to discuss whether there are different kinds of scientific revolution, and if so, how many. The basic idea of the paper is to discriminate between the formal and the social aspects of the development of science and to compare them. The paper has four parts. In the first introductory part we discuss some of the questions which arose during the debate of the historians of mathematics. In the second part, we introduce the concept of the epistemic framework of a theory. We propose to discriminate three parts of this framework, from which the one called formal frame will be of considerable importance for our approach, as its development is conservative and gradual. In the third part of the paper we define the concept of epistemic rupture as a discontinuity in the formal frame. The conservative and gradual nature of the changes of the formal frame open the possibility to compare different epistemic ruptures. We try to show that there are four different kinds of epistemic rupture, which we call idealisation, re-presentation, objectivisation and re-formulation. In the last part of the paper we derive from the classification of the epistemic ruptures a classification of scientific revolutions. As only the first three kinds of rupture are revolutionary (the re-formulations are rather cumulative), we obtain three kinds of scientific revolution: idealisation, re-presentation, and objectivisation. We discuss the relation of our classification of scientific revolutions to the views of Kuhn, Lakatos, Crowe, and Dauben.|
|Keywords||scientific revolutions epistemic ruptures epistemicframework incommensurability paradigm Kuhn Lakatos Crowe Dauben|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeff Coulter (1995). Conceptual Transformations. Sociological Theory 13 (2):163-177.
B. Larvor (2003). Why Did Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions Cause a Fuss? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 34 (2):369-390.
Xiang Chen (2007). The Object Bias and the Study of Scientific Revolutions: Lessons From Developmental Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 20 (4):479 – 503.
Paul C. L. Tang (1984). Paradigm Shifts, Scientific Revolutions, and the Unit of Scientific Change: Towards a Post-Kuhnian Theory of Types of Scientific Development. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:125 - 136.
K. Brad Wray (2007). Kuhnian Revolutions Revisited. Synthese 158 (1):61-73.
Xiang Chen & Peter Barker (2000). Continuity Through Revolutions: A Frame-Based Account of Conceptual Change During Scientific Revolutions. Philosophy of Science 67 (3):223.
Xiang Chen, Hanne Andersen & Peter Barker (1998). Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Revolutions and Cognitive Psychology. Philosophical Psychology 11 (1):5 – 28.
K. Brad Wray (2011). Kuhn's Evolutionary Social Epistemology. Cambridge University Press.
Donald Gillies (ed.) (1992). Revolutions in Mathematics. Oxford University Press.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2008). Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2):101-115.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads52 ( #23,758 of 739,318 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,030 of 739,318 )
How can I increase my downloads?