Abstract
The development of the Empiricist and Popperian conceptions of scientific progress in terms of the Deductive Model has shown each to suffer a serious drawback: the Empiricist view affords no conception of theory conflict, and the Popperian view provides no consistent conception of progress itself. Nevertheless, the intuitive notions motivating each of these philosophies of science, considered independently of the model, appear quite sound. One is still inclined to admit that, in some sense, succeeding theories do subsume their rivals, and that, in spite of this, such theories conflict with one another. Thus we might accept, for example, a description of theory succession in which the superior theory is said to explain both what its rival is able to explain, as well as certain of those states of affairs which are considered anomalous to the rival. But the problem here lies in the failure of the Deductive Model, and consequently the failure of both the Empiricist and Popperian conceptions of science, to provide an account of this sort of phenomenon. And, as regards the employment of the model itself, we may add to this the problem of meaning variance, and the very question as to whether scientific theories have the form of universal statements, as the model suggests
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Kuhn (1970b), p. 3
Ibid. As regards Lakatos, see Kuhn (1971)
Kuhn (1970c), p. 234. See also pp. 266-267 of the same article, and Kuhn (1974), p. 504: “My main and most persistent criticism of the recent tradition in philosophy of science has been its total restriction of attention to syntactic at the expense of semantic problems.”
Kuhn (1970c), p. 261. See also, e.g. his (1970a), p. 199. For an instance of the belief that Kuhn sees the decision between scientific theories as being irrational, see Laudan (1977), pp. 3f. & 141
This view is still held by influential commentators today: see e.g. Stegmüller (1979), p. 69
Cf. e.g. Feyerabend (1970), pp. 220-222
Cf. e.g. Kuhn (1962), p. 102, and Feyerabend (1965b), pp. 230ff
For Kuhn, cf. his (1962),p. 102; Feyerabend does not include this case among his examples in, e.g., his (1975), pp. 276-277, and has pointed out in a personal communication that he does not take it to constitute an instance of incommensurability
Cf. e.g. Kuhn (1962), pp. 103 & 165, and (1970a), p. 175; and see Feyerabend (1975), p. 274
Feyerabend(1965b), p.231
Kuhn (1970c), p. 266. Note that Kuhn does not claim that all descriptive terms should change in meaning. In this regard cf. also p. 506 of (the discussion following) Kuhn (1974)
Feyerabend (1965a), p. 267
Feyerabend (1965b), p. 230
Feyerabend (1975), pp. 225ff
Kuhn (1962), p. 85
Ibid., p. 150
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1994 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Dilworth, C. (1994). Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Incommensurability. In: Scientific Progress. Synthese Library, vol 153. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0914-7_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-0914-7_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-0-7923-2488-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-011-0914-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive