David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
AIP Conference Proceedings 861:1147-1154 (2006)
This paper strengthens and defends the pluralistic implications of Einstein's successful, quantitative predictions of Brownian motion for a philosophical dispute about the nature of scientific advance that began between two prominent philosophers of science in the second half of the twentieth century (Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend). Kuhn promoted a monistic phase-model of scientific advance, according to which a paradigm driven `normal science' gives rise to its own anomalies, which then lead to a crisis and eventually a scientific revolution. Feyerabend stressed the importance of pluralism for scientific progress. He rejected Kuhn's model arguing that it fails to recognize the role that alternative theories can play in identifying exactly which phenomena are anomalous in the first place. On Feyerabend's account, Einstein's predictions allow for a crucial experiment between two incommensurable theories, and are an example of an anomaly that could refute the reigning paradigm only after the development of a competitor. Using Kuhn's specification of a disciplinary matrix to illustrate the incommensurability between the two paradigms, we examine the different research strategies available in this peculiar case. On the basis of our reconstruction, we conclude by rebutting some critics of Feyerabend's argument.
|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
Paul Hoyningen-Huene & Eric Oberheim (2009). Reference, Ontological Replacement and Neo-Kantianism: A Reply to Sankey. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2):203-209.
Similar books and articles
Xiaoping Chen (2006). Bayesian Test and Kuhn's Paradigm. Frontiers of Philosophy in China 1 (3):491-505.
Ronald Laymon (1977). Feyerabend, Brownian Motion, and the Hiddenness of Refuting Facts. Philosophy of Science 44 (2):225-247.
William H. Austin (1972). Paradigms, Rationality, and Partial Communication. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 3 (2):203-218.
Eric Oberheim (2005). On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend's Assault on Conceptual Conservatism. Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 36 (2):363-90.
Jonathan Y. Tsou (2003). Reconsidering Feyerabend's 'Anarchism'. Perspectives on Science 11 (2):208-235.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2008). Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution. Foundations of Chemistry 10 (2):101-115.
Hanne Andersen (2006). The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge University Press.
Harold I. Brown (1983). Incommensurability. Inquiry 26 (1):3 – 29.
Paul Hoyningen-Huene (2002). Paul Feyerabend Und Thomas Kuhn. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 33 (1):61-83.
Added to index2009-06-16
Total downloads104 ( #14,276 of 1,692,519 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #12,130 of 1,692,519 )
How can I increase my downloads?