Continuity of Theory Structure: A Conceptual Spaces Approach

References

• Andreas, H., and F. Zenker. 2014. “Basic Concepts of Structuralism.” Erkenntnis 79: 1367–1372. doi: 10.1007/s10670-013-9572-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Balzer, W., C. U. Moulines, and J. D. Sneed. 1987. An Architectonic for Science: The Structuralist Program. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Balzer, W., C. U. Moulines, and J. D. Sneed, eds. 2000. Structuralist Knowledge Representation: Paradigmatic Examples. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
   Google Scholar
• Born, M. 1953. “Physical Reality.” Philosophical Quarterly 3: 139–149. doi: 10.2307/2216882
   Google Scholar
• Campbell, N. R. 1920. Physics: The Elements. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Carroll, J. W. 2010. “Laws of Nature.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta. Accessed 11 July 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/laws-of-nature.
   Google Scholar
• Chakravartty, A. 2004. “Structuralism as a Form of Scientific Realism.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 18: 151–171. doi: 10.1080/0269859042000296503
   Google Scholar
• Chang, H. 2004. Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Falkenburg, B. 2012. “From Waves to Particle Tracks and Quantum Probabilities.” In From Ultra Rays to Astroparticles, edited by B. Falkenburg and W. Rhode, 265–295. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• French, S. 2014. The Structure of the World: Metaphysics and Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 2001. Dynamics of Reason. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. 2002. “Kant, Kuhn, and the Rationality of Science.” Philosophy of Science 69: 171–190. doi: 10.1086/341048
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gärdenfors, P. 2000. Conceptual Spaces: The Geometry of Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gärdenfors, P. 2014. The Geometry of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gärdenfors, P., and A. Stephens. Forthcoming. “ Induction and Knowledge-what.”
   Google Scholar
• Gärdenfors, P., and F. Zenker. 2011. “Using Conceptual Spaces to Model the Dynamics of Empirical Theories.” In Philosophy of Science Meets Belief Revision Theory, edited by E. J. Olsson and S. Enqvist, 137–153. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Gärdenfors, P., and F. Zenker. 2013. “Theory Change as Dimensional Change: Conceptual Spaces Applied to the Dynamics of Empirical Theories.” Synthese 190: 1039–1058. doi: 10.1007/s11229-011-0060-0
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodman, N. 1983. Fact, Fiction, and Forecast. 4th ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hatfield, G. 2006. “Kant on the Perception of Space (and Time).” In Kant and Modern Philosophy, edited by P. Guyer, 61–93. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jammer, M. 1960. Concepts of Space: The History of Theories of Space in Physics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kosso, P. 1989. Observability and Observation in Physical Science. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
   Google Scholar
• Krantz, D. H., R. D. Luce, P. Suppes, and A. Tversky. 1971–1990. Foundations of Measurement. 3 vols. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. [1962] 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 1987. “What Are Scientific Revolutions?” In The Probabilistic Revolution, edited by L. Krüger, L. J. Daston, and M. Heidelberger, vol. 1, 7–22. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Kuhn, T. S. 2000. The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by J. Conant and J. Haughland. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladyman, J. 2014. “Structural Realism.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta. Accessed 11 July 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2014/entries/structural-realism.
   Google Scholar
• Ladyman, J., and D. Ross. 2007. Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lakatos, I. 1978. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Larvor, B. 2003. “Why Did Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions Cause a Fuss?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 34: 369–390. doi: 10.1016/S0039-3681(03)00023-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lindsay, R. B. 1971. “The Concept of Energy and Its Early Historical Development.” Foundations of Physics 1: 383–393. doi: 10.1007/BF00708586
   Google Scholar
• Luce, R. D., and P. Suppes. 2002. “Representational Measurement Theory.” In Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology: Methodology in Experimental Psychology. 3rd ed., edited by H. Pashler and J. T. Wixted, vol. 4, 1–41. New York: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Masterton, G., F. Zenker, and P. Gärdenfors. 2017. “Using Conceptual Spaces to Exhibit Continuity Through Scientific Theory Change.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 7: 127–150. doi: 10.1007/s13194-016-0149-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Michelson, A. A., and E. W. Morley. 1887. “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and of the Luminiferous Ether.” Sidereal Messenger 6: 306–310.
   Google Scholar
• Moulines, C. U. 2014. “Intertheoretical Relations and the Dynamics of Science.” Erkenntnis 79: 1505–1519. doi: 10.1007/s10670-013-9580-y
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersen, G., and F. Zenker. 2014. “From Euler to Navier–Stokes: A Spatial Analysis of Conceptual Changes in Nineteenth-Century Fluid Dynamics.” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 28: 235–253. doi: 10.1080/02698595.2014.953341
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poincaré, H. [1908] 1952. Science and Method. Translated by F. Maitland. Mineola, NY: Dover.
   Google Scholar
• Post, H. 1971. “Correspondence, Invariance, and Heuristics: In Praise of Conservative Induction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2: 213–255. doi: 10.1016/0039-3681(71)90042-2
   Google Scholar
• Psillos, S. 1995. “Is Structural Realism the Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 49: 15–46. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.1995.tb00113.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reichenbach, H. [1920] 1965. The Theory of Relativity and A Priori Knowledge. Translated by M. Reichenbach. Berkeley: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sneed, J. D. 1971. The Logical Structure of Mathematical Physics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
   Google Scholar
• Stanford, P. K. 2003a. “No Refuge for Realism: Selective Confirmation and the History of Science.” Philosophy of Science 70: 913–925. doi: 10.1086/377377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stanford, P. K. 2003b. “Pyrrhic Victories for Scientific Realism.” Journal of Philosophy 100: 551–572.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stegmüller, W. 1976. The Structure and Dynamics of Theories. Berlin: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, S. S. 1946. “On the Theory of Scales of Measurement.” Science 103: 677–680. doi: 10.1126/science.103.2684.677
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Suppes, P. 2002. Representation and Invariance of Scientific Structures. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Tal, E. 2012. “The Epistemology of Measurement: A Model-based Account.” PhD thesis, University of Toronto.
   Google Scholar
• Tal, E. 2015. “Measurement in Science.” In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2015 Edition), edited by E. N. Zalta. Accessed 11 July 2016. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/measurement-science.
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, J. J. 1881. “On the Electric and Magnetic Effects Produced by the Motion of Electrified Bodies.” Philosophical Magazine Series 5 11: 229–249. doi: 10.1080/14786448108627008
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, J. J. 1897. “Cathode Rays.” Philosophical Magazine Series 5 44: 293–316. doi: 10.1080/14786449708621070
   Google Scholar
• Thomson, J. J. 1899. “On the Masses of the Ions in Gases at Low Pressures.” Philosophical Magazine Series 5 48: 547–567. doi: 10.1080/14786449908621447
   Google Scholar
• Turney, P. 1990. “Embeddability, Syntax, and Semantics in Accounts of Scientific Theories.” Journal of Philosophical Logic 19: 429–451. doi: 10.1007/BF00263319
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van Fraassen, B. C. 2008. Scientific Representation: Paradoxes of Perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Worrall, J. 1989. “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 43: 99–124. doi: 10.1111/j.1746-8361.1989.tb00933.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zenker, F. 2014. “From Features via Frames to Spaces: Modeling Scientific Conceptual Change Without Incommensurability or Aprioricity.” In Frames and Concept Types: Applications in Language and Philosophy, edited by T. Gamerschlag, D. Gerland, R. Osswald, and W. Petersen, 69–89. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Zenker, F., and P. Gärdenfors. 2014. “Modeling Diachronic Changes in Structuralism and in Conceptual Spaces.” Erkenntnis 79: 1547–1561. doi: 10.1007/s10670-013-9582-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zenker, F., and P. Gärdenfors. 2015. “Communication, Rationality, and Conceptual Changes in Scientific Theories.” In Applications of Conceptual Spaces: The Case for Geometric Knowledge Representation, edited by F. Zenker and P. Gärdenfors, 259–277. Dordrecht: Springer.
   Google Scholar