If, as it is usually understood, incommensurable theories must be compatible then one need never choose between two such theories. But if theories were incompatible and incommensurable one would have to choose between them. What if they are incompatible only outside the domain of observation? The fact that Darwin's biology can clash with Kelvin's physics (each with their respective auxiliary assumptions) regarding the age of the earth shows how commensurable theories may yet be incompatible. But it also shows that they (...) need not be alternatives--i.e. that one may not be able to simply and satisfactorily replace the other in our world view. But standard examples of scientific revolutions consist of the replacement of one theory by another in one's world view. These alternative theories must therefore be more than merely incompatible--what do they share if not content? (I.e. they must be commensurable.). (shrink)

In this revolutionary study of the philosophical problems of language, J.N. Hattiangadi offers a new approach which simultaneously solves several venerable conundrums in the origin and development of language and thought. His argument includes acute criticisms of the later Wittgenstein's theory of language use, Quine's approach to subjunctive conditionals, Kripke's analysis of proper names, and Chomsky's conjecture of an innate universal grammar.

The "historicity" of ideas can be reconciled with their rationality without recourse to relativism if we adopt the following view: The intellectual standards of a scientist are to be found in his intellectual situation, which is a debate underlying problems which discriminate between rival views. There is therefore no circularity between the currently accepted views and the currently accepted standards of judging a theory. debate).

I. Ian Hacking asks an intriguing question, and answers it in an interesting way. Why, he asks, does language matter to philosophy? It is a simple question. But his answer is not quite so simple, though its main feature is simple: Language matters to philosophy today for the same reason that ideas were important to philosophy in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Each in its time has been the “interface” between the knower and the known. There is much truth to (...) this answer of his, though we may note that it is somewhat incomplete: we would still like to know how ideas then and language now have come to occupy this position. (shrink)

SummaryThe clash between rationalism and humanism presupposes a radical and optimistic view of reason, with science taken as the archetype. Popper's theory of reason as critical of tradition seems to offer a new direction. But Kuhn's discovery that scientists normally are uncritical of some basic ideas makes it vacuous. An improvement upon Duhem's analysis of tests gives us a new epistemology, however where viable alternative views which are not believed nevertheless influence the organization of research. The tacit debate can be (...) regarded as an organized escape rather than as progress towards the Truth.We can thus admit tradition in science, and maintain that it is rational, even if scientists might be agreed on some basic issues during some periods. (shrink)

As a graduate student it was with great pleasure that I learned that John Watkins had decided to thank me publicly for helping him with a paper on Kuhn’s view.1 The help, such as I could give, was in Popper’s seminar, twenty-five years ago. Watkins himself, and several others, contributed much more to the seminar than I did. (The seminar was run on the principle — to repeat J.O. Wisdom’s quip — “thou shalt not speak whilst I interrupt”). Watkins was (...) not just kind but generous in thanking me and I appreciated it very much then, as a mere graduate student. But over the years, I find that I appreciate it even more, especially as I compare it with practice common among philosophers. It is ironic that by the time Watkins’ paper appeared (something resembling his view had by then already become the official reading of Kuhn’s views among philosophers of science) my own views about Kuhn’s book had changed. (shrink)

SummaryThe clash between rationalism and humanism presupposes a radical and optimistic view of reason, with science taken as the archetype. Popper's theory of reason as critical of tradition seems to offer a new direction. But Kuhn's discovery that scientists normally are uncritical of some basic ideas makes it vacuous. An improvement upon Duhem's analysis of tests gives us a new epistemology, however where viable alternative views which are not believed nevertheless influence the organization of research. The tacit debate can be (...) regarded as an organized escape rather than as progress towards the Truth.We can thus admit tradition in science, and maintain that it is rational, even if scientists might be agreed on some basic issues during some periods. (shrink)