Is There an Incommensurability between Superseding Theories? On the Validity of the Incommensurability Thesis
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 24 (1):127 - 146 (1993)
According to the Incommensurability Thesis (IT) superseding scientific theories (paradigms) are incommensurable. Unlike many authors we do not discuss whether there is a relationship of this kind. We take for granted that this may be the case, and see the problem in the endeavour to establish the domain of validity of the IT. The notion incommensurability (Ic) is derivative from the concepts of scientific paradigm (P) and scientific revolution (R). There are several concepts of P, as well as various conceptions of R. The Ic concept also has more than one meaning. The validity of the IT is restricted to a subset of P, R, and Ic. From the viewpoint of P this may be the case with (a) substantially different competing general conceptions not reformulated with a view to make them comparable, as well as with (b) scientific communities dogmatically committed to such conceptions. From the viewpoint of R this takes place when we have to do with big revolutions, i.e. superseding conceptions with prevailing discontinuity. Lastly, from the point of view of Ic proper: when it is meant a weak Ic, i.e. a particular incomparability (incompatibility) between the conceptions in question.
|Keywords||continuity in science incommensurability modules paradigm scientific revolution|
|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
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Harold I. Brown (1983). Incommensurability. Inquiry 26 (1):3 – 29.
Michael Esfeld (2005). Scientific Realism and the History of Science. Philosophy 1:1-15.
Howard Sankey (2009). Scientific Realism and the Semantic Incommensurability Thesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 40 (2):196-202.
Howard Sankey (1997). Incommensurability: The Current State of Play. Theoria 12 (3):425-45.
S. K. Arun Murthi & Sundar Sarukkai (2009). Multisemiosis and Incommensurability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 23 (3):297-311.
A. Polikarov (1993). Is There an Incommensurability Between Superseding Theories? Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24 (1):127 - 146.
Paul T. Sagal (1972). Incommensurability Then and Now. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 3 (2):298-301.
Maria Caamaño (2009). A Structural Analysis of the Phlogiston Case. Erkenntnis 70 (3):331 - 364.
Howard Sankey (1997). Incommensurability: The Current State of Play. Theoria 12 (3):425-445.
John Collier (1984). Pragmatic Incommensurability. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1984:146 - 153.
Howard Sankey (1993). Kuhn's Changing Concept of Incommensurability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (4):759-774.
David Pearce (1984). Research Traditions, Incommensurability and Scientific Progress. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 15 (2):261-271.
Eric Oberheim & Paul Hoyningen-Huene (1997). Incommensurability, Realism, and Meta-Incommensurability. Theoria 12 (3):447-465.
Howard Sankey (1998). Taxonomic Incommensurability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12 (1):7 – 16.
Igor Douven & Henk W. De Regt (2002). A Davidsonian Argument Against Incommensurability. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (2):157 – 169.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2011-05-29
Total downloads1 ( #402,963 of 1,096,515 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #238,630 of 1,096,515 )
How can I increase my downloads?