Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-sv6ng Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-15T10:13:25.096Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are There Rival, Incommensurable Theories?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Dale W. Moberg
Dale W. Moberg*
Affiliation:
Hobart & William Smith Colleges and University of Illinois at Chicago Circle
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Following an account of the incommensurability argument, an objection, based on assumptions concerning rival theories, is examined and rejected. This rejection leads to an alternative direction of criticism of incommensurability, a direction that involves the articulation of comparative standards of theory evaluation that are independent of meaning invariance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 46 , Issue 2 , June 1979 , pp. 244 - 262
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1979

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dirac, P. A. M. (1970), The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Earman, J. and Fine, A. (1977), “Against Indeterminacy,” Journal of Philosophy LXXIV, 9: 535–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K., (1962), “Explanation, Reduction, and Empiricism,” in Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time vol. III. Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 28–97.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K., (1975), Against Method, London: NLB.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K., (1968), “How to Be a Good Empiricist—A Plea for Tolerance in Matters Epistemological,” in Nidditch, P. H. (ed.), The Philosophy of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 12–39.Google Scholar
Field, H. (1973), “Theory Change and Indeterminacy of Reference,” Journal of Philosophy LXX 14: 462–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. (1975), “How to Compare Theories: Reference and Change,” Nous 9: 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemeny, J. G. and Oppenheim, P. (1956), “On Reduction,” Philosophical Studies 7: 6–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleene, S. C. (1967), Mathematical Logic, New York: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Kordig, C. (1971), The Justification of Scientific Change, Dordrecht: D. Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1976), “Two Dogmas of Methodology.” Philosophy of Science 43: 585–597.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laudan, L. (1977), Progress and its Problems, Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Martin, M., (1971), “Referential Variance and Scientific Objectivity.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 22: 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1967), Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1966), “Meaning and Scientific Change” in Colodny, R. G., (ed.), Mind and Cosmos. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 41–85.Google Scholar