, Volume 69, Issue 2, pp 141–223 | Cite as

Scientific change: Philosophical models and historical research

  • Larry Laudan
  • Arthur Donovan
  • Rachel Laudan
  • Peter Barker
  • Harold Brown
  • Jarrett Leplin
  • Paul Thagard
  • Steve Wykstra
Testing Theories Of Scientific Change


Historical Research Scientific Change Philosophical Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Cohen, I. Bernard: 1980, The Newtonian Revolution, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, I. Bernard: 1985, Revolution in Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  3. Feyerabend, Paul: 1965, ‘Problems of Empiricism’, in R. Colodny (ed.), Beyond the Edge of Certainty, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 145–260.Google Scholar
  4. Feyerabend, Paul: 1970, ‘Problems of Empiricism, Part II’, in R. Colodny (ed.), The Nature and Function of Scientific Theories, University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh, pp. 275–353.Google Scholar
  5. Feyerabend, Paul: 1975, Against Method, New Left Books, London.Google Scholar
  6. Feyerabend, Paul: 1981a, Rationalism, Realism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Vol. 1, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  7. Feyerabend, Paul: 1981b, Problems of Empiricism: Philosophical Papers, Vol. II, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  8. Fleck, Ludwig: 1979, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Holton, Gerald: 1973, Thematic Origins of Scientific Thought: Kepler to Einstein, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.Google Scholar
  10. Kuhn, Thomas S.: 1963, ‘The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research’, in A. C. Crombie (ed.), Scientific Change, Basic Books, New York, pp. 347–69.Google Scholar
  11. Kuhn, Thomas S.: 1970, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., enlarged, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  12. Kuhn, Thomas S.: 1977, The Essential Tension, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  13. Kuhn, Thomas S.: 1981, ‘What Are Scientific Revolutions?’, Occasional Paper no. 18, Center for Cognitive Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  14. Kuhn, Thomas S.: 1983a, ‘Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability’, in P. D. Asquith and T. Nickles (eds.), PSA 1982, vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 669–88.Google Scholar
  15. Kuhn, Thomas S.: 1983b. ‘Rationality and Theory Choice’, Journal of Philosophy 80, 563–70.Google Scholar
  16. Lakatos, Imre: 1978, The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  17. Laudan, Larry: 1977, Progress & Its Problems, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  18. Laudan, Larry: 1984, Science and Values, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  19. Popper, Karl R.: 1959, The Logic of Scientific Discovery, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Popper, Karl R.: 1963, Conjectures & Refutations, Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Popper, Karl R.: 1972, Objective Knowledge, Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  22. Stegmüller, Wolfgang: 1976, The Structure and Dynamics of Theories, Springer-Verlag, New York.Google Scholar
  23. Toulmin, Stephen: 1967, ‘The Evolutionary Development of Natural Science’, American Scientist 55, 456–70.Google Scholar
  24. Toulmin, Stephen: 1972, Human Understanding, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N. J.Google Scholar

Selected Bibliography of Case Studies

  1. Alexander, J.: 1979, ‘Paradigm Revision and ‘Parsonianism’’, Canadian Journal of Sociologie 4, 343–58.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, Paul F.: 1983, ‘Marketing, Scientific Progress and Scientific Method’, Journal of Marketing 47, 18–31.Google Scholar
  3. Archibald, G. C.: 1979, ‘Method and Appraisal in Economics’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 9, 304–15.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, T.: 1976, ‘From Paradigms to Research Programs: Toward a Post-Kuhnian Political Science’, American Journal of Political Science 20, 151–77.Google Scholar
  5. Barbour, Ian: 1980, ‘Paradigms in Science and Religion’, in Gutting (1980), pp. 223–45.Google Scholar
  6. Barker, Peter and B. Gholson: 1984, ‘The History of the Psychology of Learning as a Rational Process: Lakatos versus Kuhn’, in H. W. Reese (ed.), Advances in Child Development and Behavior 18, Academic Press, New York, 227–44.Google Scholar
  7. Barker, Peter and B. Gholson: 1985, ‘Kuhn, Lakatos and Laudan: Applications to the History of Physics and Psychology’, American Psychologist 40, 755–69.Google Scholar
  8. Baumberger, J.: 1977, ‘No Kuhnian Revolution in Economics’, Journal of Economic Issues 11, 1–20.Google Scholar
  9. Beardsley, Philip: 1974, ‘Political Science: the Case of the Missing Paradigm’, Political Theory 2, 46–61.Google Scholar
  10. Bechtel, W.: 1984, ‘The Evolution of Our Understanding of the Cell: A Study in the Dynamics of Scientific Progress’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 15, 309–56.Google Scholar
  11. Bernstein, Howard: 1981, ‘Marxist Historiography and the Methodology of Research Programmes’, History and Theory 20, 424–49.Google Scholar
  12. Blaug, M.: 1980, A Methodological Appraisal of Marxian Economics, Elsevier, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  13. Blaug, Mark: 1980, ‘Kuhn versus Lakatos, or Paradigms versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics’, in Gutting (1980), pp. 137–59.Google Scholar
  14. Bluhm, William T.: 1982, The Paradigm Problem in Political Science: Perspectives from Philosophy and from Practice, Carolina Academic Press, Durham, N.C.Google Scholar
  15. Bronfenbenner, M.: 1971, ‘The ‘Structure of Revolutions’ in Economic Thought’, History of Political Economy 3, 136–51.Google Scholar
  16. Brooke, John: 1981, ‘Avogadro's Hypothesis and its Fate: A Case-Study in the Failure of Case-Studies’, History of Science 19, 234–73.Google Scholar
  17. Brown, T.: 1969, ‘The Electric Current in Early 19th-Century French Physics’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 1, 61ff.Google Scholar
  18. Brown, T.: 1978, ‘The Rise of Baconianism in 17th-Century England’, in Science and History, Polish Academy of Sciences Press, 502–22.Google Scholar
  19. Bryant, C. G. A.: 1975, ‘Kuhn, Paradigms, and Sociology’, British Journal of Sociology 26, 354–59.Google Scholar
  20. Buchdahl, Gerd: 1970, ‘History of Science and Criteria of Choice’, in Roger Stuewer (ed.), Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 204–30.Google Scholar
  21. Buss, A.: 1978, The Structure of Psychological Revolutions’, Journal of the Behavioral Sciences 14, 57–64.Google Scholar
  22. Clark, Peter: 1976, ‘Atomism vs. Thermodynamics’, in Howson (1976), pp. 41–106.Google Scholar
  23. Coats, A. W.: 1969, ‘Is there a ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ in Economics?’, KYKLOS, 22, 289–96.Google Scholar
  24. Coats, A. W.: 1976, ‘Economics and Psychology: the Death and Resurrection of a Research Programme’, in Latsis (1976), pp. 43–64.Google Scholar
  25. Constant, Edward: 1980, The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution, Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  26. Crane, Diane: 1980, ‘An Exploratory Study of Kuhnian Paradigms in Theoretical High-Energy Physics’, Social Studies of Science 10, 23–54.Google Scholar
  27. Crowe, Michael: 1975, ‘Ten ‘Laws’ Concerning Patterns of Change in Mathematics’, Historia Mathematica 2, 161–66.Google Scholar
  28. Cushing, James: 1982, ‘Models and Methodologies in Current Theoretical High Energy Physics’, Synthese 50, 5–101, 109–23.Google Scholar
  29. Darden, Lindley: 1976, ‘Reasoning in Scientific Change: Darwin, DeVries and the Discovery of Segregation’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 7, 127–69.Google Scholar
  30. Donovan, Arthur: 1976, ‘Chemistry and Philosophy in the Scottish Enlightenment’, Studies on Voltaire and the Enlightenment 152, 587–605.Google Scholar
  31. Donovan, Arthur: 1982, ‘William Cullen and the Research Tradition of Eighteenth-Century Scottish Chemistry’, in R. H. Campbell and Andrew S. Skinner (eds.), The Origins and Nature of the Scottish Enlightenment, John Donald, Edinburgh, pp. 98–114.Google Scholar
  32. Dooley, Patrick: 1982, ‘Kuhn and Psychology: the Rogers-Skinner, Day-Giorgi Debates’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior 12, 275–90.Google Scholar
  33. Eckberg, Douglas Lee and Lester Hill, Jr.: 1980, ‘The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review’, in Gutting (1980), pp. 117–36.Google Scholar
  34. Fang, J.: 1973, ‘Is Mathematics an ‘Anomaly’ in the Theory of Scientific Revolutions?’, Philosophica Mathematica 10, 92–101.Google Scholar
  35. Ferguson, Michael: 1981, ‘Progress and Theory Change: Two Analyses of Mr. Z’, Annual of Psychoanalysis 19, 133–60.Google Scholar
  36. Frankel, Henry: 1978, ‘The Non-Kuhnian Nature of the Recent Revolution in the Earth Sciences’, in Ian Hacking and Peter Asquith (eds.), PSA 1978, Vol. 2, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 197–214.Google Scholar
  37. Frankel, Henry: 1979, ‘Why Continental Drift Theory Was Accepted by the Geological Community with the Confirmation of Harry Hess's Concept of Seafloor Spreading’, in Cecil Schneer (ed.), Two Hundred Years of Geology in America, University Press of New England, Hanover, New Hampshire, pp. 337–53.Google Scholar
  38. Frankel, Henry: 1979, ‘The Career of Continental Drift Theory: an Application of Imre Lakatos' Analysis of Scientific Growth to the Rise of Drift Theory’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10, 21–66.Google Scholar
  39. Frankel, Henry: 1979, ‘The Acceptance and Rejection of Continental Drift Theory as a Rational Episode in the History of Science’, in Seymour Mauskopf (ed.), The Reception of Unconventional Science: AAAS Selected Symposium, AAAS, Washington, pp. 51–89.Google Scholar
  40. Frankel, Henry: 1980, ‘Hess's Development of His Seafloor Spreading Hypothesis’, in Thomas Nickles (ed.), Scientific Discovery: Case Studies, Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 345–66.Google Scholar
  41. Frankel, Henry: 1980, ‘Problem-Solving, Research Traditions, and the Development of Scientific Fields’, in R. Giere and Peter Asquith (eds.), PSA 1980, Vol. 3, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 29–40.Google Scholar
  42. Frankel, Henry: 1980, ‘The Importance of Anticipating Problem Solutions in Theory Choice’, Indian Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research 39, 57–68.Google Scholar
  43. Frankel, Henry: 1981, ‘The Paleobiogeographical Debate over the Problem of Disjunctively Distributed Life Forms’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 12, 211–59.Google Scholar
  44. Frankel, Henry: 1982, ‘The Development, Reception, and Acceptance of the Vine-Matthews-Morley Hypothesis’, Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 13, 1–39.Google Scholar
  45. Fricke, Martin: 1967, ‘The Rejection of Avogadro's Hypotheses’, in Howson (1976), pp. 277–308.Google Scholar
  46. Gardner, Michael: 1979, ‘Realism and Instrumentalism in 19th-Century Atomism’, Philosophy of Science 46, 1–34.Google Scholar
  47. Greene, J. C.: 1971, ‘The Kuhnian Paradigm and the Darwinian Revolution in Natural Histroy’, in Duane Roller (ed.), Perspectives in the History of Science and Technology, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 3–25.Google Scholar
  48. Gutting, Gary (ed.): 1980, Paradigms and Revolutions, University of Notre Dame Press, Indiana.Google Scholar
  49. Gutting, Gary (ed.): 1984, ‘Paradigms, Revolutions and Technology’, in R. Laudan (1984), pp. 47–66.Google Scholar
  50. Hall, Richard: 1970, ‘Kuhn and the Copernican Revolution’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21, 196–97.Google Scholar
  51. Hands, Douglas: 1979, ‘The Methodology of Economic Research Programmes’, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 9, 293–303.Google Scholar
  52. Hands, Douglas: 1985, ‘Second Thoughts on Lakatos’, History of Political Economy 17, 1–15.Google Scholar
  53. Hattiangadi, J.: 1971, ‘Alternatives and Incommensurables: The Case of Darwin and Kelvin’, Philosophy of Science 38, 502–7.Google Scholar
  54. Heidelberger, M.: 1976, ‘Some Intertheoretic Relations between Ptolemean and Copernican Astronomy’, in Gutting (1980), pp. 271–83.Google Scholar
  55. Heidelberger, M.: 1980, ‘Towards a Logical Reconstruction of Revolutionary Change: The Case of Ohm as an Example’, Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 11, 103–21.Google Scholar
  56. Hendrick, R. E. and A. Murphy: 1981, ‘Atomism and the Illusion of Crisis: The Danger of Applying Kuhnian Categories to Current Particle Physics’, Philosophy of Science 48, 454–68.Google Scholar
  57. Howson, Colin (ed.): 1976, Method and Appraisal in the Physical Sciences: The Critical Background to Modern Science, 1800–1905, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  58. Hufbauer, Karl: 1982, The Formation of the German Chemical Community, 1720–1795, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  59. Hull, David, P. Tessner, and A. Diamond: 1978, ‘Planck's Principle: Do Younger Scientists Accept New Scientific Ideas with Greater Alacrity than Older Scientists?’, Science 202, 717–22.Google Scholar
  60. Kitts, D. B.: 1977, ‘Continental Drift and Scientific Revolutions’, in Kitts (ed.), The Structure of Geology, Southern Methodist University Press, Dallas, pp. 115–27.Google Scholar
  61. Kleiner, Scott: 1979, ‘Feyerabend, Galileo and Darwin: How to Make the Best Out of What You Have—or Think You Can Get’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 10, 285–309.Google Scholar
  62. Kleiner, Scott: 1981, ‘Problem Solving and Discovery in the Growth of Darwin's Theories of Evolution’, Synthese 47, 119–62.Google Scholar
  63. Kunin, L. and F. S. Weaver: 1971, ‘On the Structure of Scientific Revolutions in Economics’, History of Political Economy 3, 391–97.Google Scholar
  64. Latsis, S. (ed.): 1976, Method and Appraisal in Economics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  65. Laudan, Rachel: 1980, ‘The Recent Revolution in Geology and Kuhn's Theory of Scientific Change’, in Gutting (1980), pp. 284–96.Google Scholar
  66. Shrader-Frechette, K.: 1977, ‘Atomism in Crisis: An Analysis of the Current High Energy Paradigm’, Philosophy of Science 44, 409–40.Google Scholar
  67. Stanfield, R.: 1974, ‘Kuhnian Scientific Revolutions and the Keynesian Revolution’, Journal of Economic Issues 8, 97–109.Google Scholar
  68. Stephens, J.: 1973, ‘The Kuhnian Paradigm and Political Inquiry: An Appraisal’, American Journal of Political Science 17, 467–88.Google Scholar
  69. Tobey, Ronald: 1981, Saving the Prairies, University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  70. Tornebohm, Hakan: 1977, Paradigm Shift in Theories of Gravitation, Esseite studium, Stockholm.Google Scholar
  71. Urbach, Peter: 1974, ‘Progress and Degeneration in the ‘I.Q. Debate’’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 25, 99–135, 235–59.Google Scholar
  72. Weimer, W. B. and D. S. Palermo: 1973, ‘Paradigms and Normal Science in Psychology’, Science Studies 3, 211–44.Google Scholar
  73. Winston, M. E.: 1976, ‘Did a (Kuhnian) Scientific Revolution Occur in Linguistics?’ in F. Suppe and P. Asquith (ed.), PSA 1976, Vol. 1, Philosophy of Science Association, East Lansing, Michigan, pp. 25–33.Google Scholar
  74. Wolin, Sheldon: 1980, ‘Paradigms and Political Theories’, in Gutting (1980), pp. 160–94.Google Scholar
  75. Worrall, John: 1976, ‘Thomas Young and the ‘Refutation’ of Newtonian Optics’, in Howson (1976), pp. 107–79.Google Scholar
  76. Worrall, John: 1982, ‘The Pressure of Light: The Strange Case of the Vacillating ‘Crucial Experiment’’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 13, 133–71.Google Scholar
  77. Zahar, E.: 1973, ‘Why did Einstein's Programme Supersede Lorentz's?’, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24, 95–123, 223–62.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© D. Reidel Publishing Company 1986

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry Laudan
    • 1
  • Arthur Donovan
    • 1
  • Rachel Laudan
    • 1
  • Peter Barker
    • 1
  • Harold Brown
    • 1
  • Jarrett Leplin
    • 1
  • Paul Thagard
    • 1
  • Steve Wykstra
    • 1
  1. 1.Science Studies Center Price HouseVirginia TechBlacksburgUSA

Personalised recommendations