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

Mizrahi, Moti

doi:10.1080/02691728.2014.922635

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Still, I argue in this paper that the Kuhnian view of scientific change is not supported by good examples. In view of that, my criticism is stronger than the one proposed recently by Moti Mizrahi (2015), who argues that there is no strong inductive support for Kuhn's incommensurability thesis. Mizrahi does not challenge the plausibility of Kuhn's favorite examples in physics, yet he argues that there are no good examples of incommensurability in other disciplines (in the life and social sciences).…”

contrasting

confidence: 55%

"Kuhn’s Incommensurability Thesis: Good Examples Still to Be Found"

Prelević

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn famously argued that scientific revolutions consist in paradigm shifts in which the superseded and the new paradigms are incommensurable. My aim in this paper is to show that neither Kuhn's examples nor Yafeng Shan's recently proposed example adequately support this incommensurability thesis. Starting from the distinction between global and local incommensurability, I argue that, on the one hand, local incommensurability does not imply that paradigms are globally incommensurable, and, on the other, that it is likely that real support for Kuhn's thesis that "the proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds" requires global incommensurabilities. Thus, I argue that the Kuhnian view is not capable of providing satisfactory evidence that those incommensurabilities ever occurred in the history of science.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 55%

"Kuhn’s Incommensurability Thesis: Good Examples Still to Be Found"

Prelević

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Wang (2002) has claimed that taxonomic incommensurability has more to do with logic than with meanings, and Politi (2020) argues that Kuhn's late notion of incommensurability was not about taxonomies and that, contrary to the most popular interpretation, he never underwent a linguistic turn. Additionally, Kuhn scholars have diverged over the merits of taxonomic incommensurability: some authors have defended it (e.g., Andersen et al, 2006;Wray, 2007), while others have criticized it (most notably, Mizrahi, 2015). Particularly compelling is the argument put forward by Bird (2012) against taxonomic incommensurability, suggesting that as not all scientific theories have a taxonomic structure, incommensurability cannot be strictly taxonomic in nature.…”

Section: Incommensurability: Which Version To Choose?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incommensurability and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: taking Kuhn seriously

Gefaell

Saborido²

2022

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we analyze the debate between the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis in light of the concept of incommensurability developed by Thomas Kuhn. In order to do so, first we briefly present both the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Then, we clarify the meaning and interpretations of incommensurability throughout Kuhn’s works, concluding that the version of this concept deployed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is the best suited to the analysis of scientific disputes. After discussing incommensurability in Kuhn’s works, we address the question of whether the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis can be considered semantically, methodologically, and ontologically incommensurable, concluding that they can. Finally, we discuss three problems that arise from such a conclusion: firstly, what are the consequences of incommensurability; secondly, which mode of scientific change better explains this current dispute in evolutionary biology; and thirdly, whether rational theory comparison is possible given incommensurability. We suggest that the main consequence of incommensurability is profound disagreement, that the kind of scientific change that better explains the current dispute between the MS and the EES may be scientific specialization, and that incommensurability does not preclude rational theory comparison.

show abstract

“…(i) asume la necesidad histórica descrita por el marco PCK, así también, refrenda la discusión sostenida por Mizrahi-Patton y Marcus para examinar la viabilidad lógica de la TI y su potencial apoyo inductivo. En particular, tal y como el debate filosófico se ha producido, el carácter de validez del argumento anterior (modus tollens) no garantiza la profundidad y el contenido de las premisas (Mizrahi, 2015). No obstante, al menos así lo justificamos previamente, hemos formulado a partir de una lectura histórica y un análisis epistémico del constructo PCK, su dependencia teórico-estructural con el subdominio disciplinar, de modo tal que, el contexto teórico hacia donde la teoría migre posibilitará o limitará la comprensión de su significado.…”

Section: Lo Semánticounclassified

¿Cómo la inconmensurabilidad gobierna el movimiento teórico del Pck hacia la educación en Ciencias de Salud?

Campos

Pérez

2022

Estud. pedagóg.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

0002-5026-4800 RESUMEN El artículo explora la discusión epistémica en torno al conocimiento pedagógico del contenido (PCK), intentando exhibir las razones de la escasa permeabilidad que la teoría ha presentado en su penetración hacia el campo de la educación en las profesiones de salud (EPS). Con este antecedente se arguye que la tesis de la inconmensurabilidad teórica en dos de sus ramas conceptuales: holística y cognitiva/naturalizada, entregan algunos fundamentos epistémicos que explicarían la infertilidad heurística para este ámbito. Como conclusión, se afirma que en el movimiento de teorías entre campos vecinos: Educación y EPS, se advierte una inconmensurabilidad fundamentada en ambas ramas señaladas. Finalmente, los autores proponen que el saber disciplinar de las profesiones constituye la base conceptual para superar la inconmensurabilidad del PCK en el ámbito de la EPS. En términos lógicos, ello, aunque no constituye la condición suficiente, sí corresponde a una condición necesaria para el progreso de la teoría.

show abstract

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

Cited by 6 publications

References 26 publications

"Kuhn’s Incommensurability Thesis: Good Examples Still to Be Found"

"Kuhn’s Incommensurability Thesis: Good Examples Still to Be Found"

Incommensurability and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: taking Kuhn seriously

¿Cómo la inconmensurabilidad gobierna el movimiento teórico del Pck hacia la educación en Ciencias de Salud?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About