David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Topoi 32 (1):33-41 (2013)
This paper revisits one of the key ideas developed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In particular, it explores the methodological form of incommensurability which may be found in the original edition of Structure. It is argued that such methodological incommensurability leads to a form of epistemic relativism. In later work, Kuhn moved away from the original idea of methodological incommensurability with his idea of a set of epistemic values that provides a basis for rational theory choice, but do not constitute an algorithm for such choice. The paper also explores the sceptical basis for the epistemic relativism of the original view that Kuhn proposes in Structure. It suggests that the main sceptical rationale for such relativism may be avoided by a particularist and naturalist conception of epistemic normativity. When this approach is combined with the appeal to external methodological standards endorsed by the later Kuhn and his critics, the epistemic relativism of Structure may be completely repudiated
|Keywords||Methodological incommensurability Epistemic relativism Pyrrhonian scepticism Particularism|
|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
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (1993). Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of Science. University of Chicago Press.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1970). A Response to My Critics. In Imre Lakatos & Alan Musgrave (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge University Press.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. University of Chicago Press.
Thomas S. Kuhn (1996/2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Citations of this work BETA
Steven Bland (forthcoming). Incommensurability, Relativism, and The Epistemic Authority Of Science. Episteme:1-11.
Similar books and articles
Howard Sankey (2012). Scepticism, Relativism and the Argument From the Criterion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1):182-190.
Howard Sankey (2010). Witchcraft, Relativism and the Problem of the Criterion. Erkenntnis 72 (1):1 - 16.
Howard Sankey (2011). Epistemic Relativism and the Problem of the Criterion. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (4):562-570.
I. Koskinen (2011). Seemingly Similar Beliefs: A Case Study on Relativistic Research Practices. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41 (1):84-110.
Harvey Siegel (1980). I. Epistemological Relativism in its Latest Form. Inquiry 23 (1):107 – 117.
Gerald Doppelt (1978). Kuhn's Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense. Inquiry 21 (1-4):33 – 86.
Howard Sankey (1993). Kuhn's Changing Concept of Incommensurability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (4):759-774.
Steven Luper (2004). Epistemic Relativism. Philosophical Issues 14 (1):271–295.
Duncan Pritchard (2009). Defusing Epistemic Relativism. Synthese 166 (2):397 - 412.
Ram Neta (2007). In Defense of Epistemic Relativism. Episteme 4 (1):30-48.
Nathaniel Goldberg & Matthew Rellihan (2008). Incommensurability, Relativism, Scepticism: Reflections on Acquiring a Concept. Ratio 21 (2):147–167.
Jeremy Randel Koons (2001). Emotions and Incommensurable Moral Concepts. Philosophy 76 (4):585-604.
Berit Brogaard (2008). The Trivial Argument for Epistemic Value Pluralism. Or How I Learned to Stop Caring About Truth. In Adrian Haddock, Alan Millar & D. Pritchard (eds.), Epistemic Value. Oxford University Press.
Added to index2012-10-19
Total downloads48 ( #38,652 of 1,168,035 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #13,514 of 1,168,035 )
How can I increase my downloads?