Kuhn’s Incommensurability Thesis: What’s the Argument?

References

• Allchin, D. 2005. William Harvey and capillaries. The American Biology Teacher 67 (1): 56–9.10.1662/0002-7685(2005)067[0056:WHC]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bird, A. 2007. Incommensurability naturalized. In Rethinking scientific change and theory comparison, edited by L. Soler, H. Sankey, and P. Hoyningen-Huene, pp. 21–39. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Bird, A. 2012. The structure of scientific revolutions and its significance: An essay review of the fiftieth anniversary edition. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63: 859–83.10.1093/bjps/axs031
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowie, A., ed. 1889. On the motion of the heart and the blood in animals by William Harvey M.D. London: George Bell & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, H. I. 2005. Incommensurability reconsidered. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 36: 149–69.10.1016/j.shpsa.2004.12.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conant, J., and J. Haugeland. 2000. Editors’ introduction. In The road since structure, edited by J. Conant and J. Haugeland, pp. 1–10. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Debus, A. G. 1954. Man and nature in the renaissance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Dupré, J. 1981. Natural kinds and biological taxa. The Philosophical Review 90 (1): 66–90.10.2307/2184373
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elkana, Y., and J. Goodfield. 1968. Harvey and the problem of the “capillaries”. Isis 59 (1): 61–73.10.1086/isis.1968.59.issue-1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feyerabend, P. K. 1962. Explanation, reduction and empiricism. In Scientific explanation, space, and time: Minnesota studies in philosophy of science, vol. III, edited by H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, pp. 28–97. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Feyerabend, P. K. 1987. Putnam on incommensurability. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 38 (1): 75–81.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Fraassen, B. C. 1980. The scientific image. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0198244274.001.0001
   Google Scholar
• van Fraassen, B. C. 2007. From a view of science to a new empiricism. In Images of empiricism: Essays on science and stances, with a reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, edited by B. Monton, pp. 337–84. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 2001. Dynamics of reason. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 2011. Extending the dynamics of reason. Erkenntnis 75: 431–44.10.1007/s10670-011-9342-7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gattei, S. 2003. Editor’s introduction. Social Epistemology 17 (2–3): 89–92.10.1080/0269172032000168526
   Google Scholar
• Grice, H. P. 1969. Utterer’s meaning and intention. The Philosophical Review 78: 147–77.10.2307/2184179
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall, M. B. 1962. The scientific renaissance 1450–1630. 1994th ed. New York: Dover Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Hempel, C. 1965. Aspects of scientific explanation and other essays in the philosophy of science. New York: Free Press.
   Google Scholar
• Henderson, D. K. 1994. Conceptual schemes after Davidson. In Language, mind and epistemology, edited by G. Preyer, F. Siebelt, and A. Ulfig, pp. 171–97. Dordrecht: Kluwer.10.1007/978-94-017-2041-0
   Google Scholar
• Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1993. Reconstructing scientific revolutions: The philosophy of science of Thomas S. Kuhn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ivanova, M. 2011. Friedman’s relativised a priori and structural realism: In search of compatibility. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 25 (1): 23–37.10.1080/02698595.2011.552416
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 1978. Theories, theorists and theoretical change. The Philosophical Review 87: 519–47.10.2307/2184458
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitcher, P. 1989. Explanatory unification and the causal structure of the world. In Scientific explanation, edited by P. Kitcher and W. Salmon, pp. 410–505. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kripke, S. 1977. Speaker’s reference and semantic reference. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 2: 255–76.10.1111/j.1475-4975.1977.tb00045.x
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 1970. Postscript—1969. In The structure of scientific revolutions, pp. 174–210. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 1977. The essential tension. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. 2000. The road since structure. Edited by J. Conant and J. Haugeland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• McArthur, D. 2008. Theory change, structural realism, and the relativised a priori. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 22: 5–20.10.1080/02698590802280860
   Google Scholar
• Mizrahi, M. 2012. Why the ultimate argument for scientific realism ultimately fails. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43 (1): 132–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Oberheim, E., and P. Hoyningen-Huene. 2013. The incommensurability of scientific theories. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta, Spring 2013 ed. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2013/entries/incommensurability/.
   Google Scholar
• O’Malley, C. D. 1965. Andreas Vesalius of Brussels 1514–1564. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollock, J. L. 1987. Defeasible reasoning. Cognitive Science 11 (4): 481–518.10.1207/s15516709cog1104_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Putnam, H. 1981. Reason, truth and history. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511625398
   Google Scholar
• Russell, M. 2003. Piltdown man: The secret life of Charles Dawson. Stroud: Tempus.
   Google Scholar
• Salmon, W. 1971. Statistical explanation. In Statistical explanation and statistical relevance, edited by W. Salmon, pp. 29–87. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sankey, H. 1993. Kuhn’s changing concept of incommensurability. The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 44 (4): 759–74.10.1093/bjps/44.4.759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankey, H. 1994. The incommensurability thesis. London: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Sankey, H. 1997. Taxonomic incommensurability. In Rationality, relativism and incommensurability, edited by H. Sankey, pp. 66–80. London: Ashgate.
   Google Scholar
• Sankey, H. 2009. Scientific realism and the semantic incommensurability thesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40 (2): 196–202.10.1016/j.shpsa.2009.03.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sankey, H., and P. Hoyningen-Huene. 2001. Introduction. In Incommensurability and related matters, edited by P. Hoyningen-Huene and H. Sankey, pp. vii–xxxiv. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Scheffler, I. 1982. Science and subjectivity. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Stillwaggon Swan, L., and M. Bruce. 2011. Kuhn’s incommensurability arguments. In Just the arguments: 100 of the most important arguments in western philosophy, edited by M. Bruce and S. Barbone, pp. 341–3. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.10.1002/9781444344431.ch90
   Google Scholar
• Westfall, R. 1983. Never at rest: A biography of Isaac Newton. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, K. B. 2011. Kuhn’s evolutionary social epistemology. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511997990
   Google Scholar