Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-tj2md Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T09:37:43.769Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Criticism and Revolutions

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

Mara Beller
Mara Beller*
Affiliation:
Program in the History and Philosophy of Science The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

The argument

In this paper I argue that Kuhn's and Hanson's notion of incommensurable paradigms is rooted in the rhetoric of finality of the Copenhagen dogma — the orthodox philosophical interpretation of quantum physics. I also argue that arguments for holism of a paradigm, on which the notion of the impossibility of its gradual modification is based, misinterpret the Duhem-Quine thesis. The history of science (Copernican, Chemical, and Quantum Revolutions) demonstrates fruitful selective appropriation of ideas from seemingly “incommensurable” paradigms (rather than the impossibility of communication between their representatives). I argue in conclusion that such openness underlies scientific creativity, and that dialogue between different alternatives is indispensable for the growth of knowledge.

Type
Research Article
Information
Science in Context , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , Spring 1997 , pp. 13 - 37
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1997

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was written and presented at the conference “Models of Critique in Science, Society, and Arts,” Jerusalem–Tel Aviv, 13–16 May 1996, before the sad news of T.S. Kuhn's passing away reached me.

I would like to express my personal scholarly debt to Thomas Kuhn's work, as well as my deep appreciation of his enormous impact on the history, philosophy, and sociology of science.

References

AHQP — Archive for the History of Quantum Physics, assembled by Kuhn, T. S., Heilbron, J. L., Forman, Paul, and Allen, Lini. In Sources for History of Quantum Physics: An Inventory and Report. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batens, D., and van Bendegem, J. P., eds. 1988 Theory and Experiment. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S. 1966. “On the Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics.” Reviews of Modern Physics 38:447–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, J. S.. 1987. Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beller, M. 1983. “Matrix Theory before Schrödinger: Philosophy, Problems, Consequences.” ISIS 74:469–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, M.. 1990. “Born Probabilistic Interpretation — A Case Study of‘Concepts in Flux’.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, M.. 1992. “The Birth of Bohr's Complementarity: The Context and the Dialogues.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23(1): 147–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beller, M.. 1996. “Bohm and ‘Inevitability’ of Acausality.” In Cushing et al. eds. 1996, 211–30.Google Scholar
Beller, M.. Forthcoming. “Kant Impact on Einstein Thought.” In The Young Einstein: Einsteinian Studies, edited by Howard, D. H. and Stachel, J..Google Scholar
Ben-Menahem, Y. 1992. “Struggling with Realism — Schrödinger's Case.” In Erwin Schrödinger's Philosophy and the Birth of Quantum Mechanics, edited by Bitbol, M. and Darrigol, O.. Paris: Editions Frontières.Google Scholar
Biagioli, M. 1990. “Galileo's System of Patronage.” History of Science 28:1–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D. 1952. “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden Variables,’ I and II.” Physical Review 85:166–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D.. 1964: “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by T. Kuhn.” Philosophical Quarterly 14:377–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohm, D., and Peat, F. D.. 1987. Science, Order and Creativity. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
Born, M., Heisenberg, W., and Jordan, P.. 1925. “Zur Quantenmechanik TT.” Zeitschrift für Physik 35:557–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, M., and Jordan, P.. 1925. “Zur Quantenmechanik.” Zeitschrift für Physik 34:858–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevalley, C. 1988. “Physical Reality and Closed Theories in Werner Heisenberg's Early Papers.” In Batens, and van Bendegem, 1988, 159–76.Google Scholar
Coffa, J. A. 1991. The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap: To the Vienna Stations. Edited by Wessels, L.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, I. B. 1987. “Scientific Revolutions, Revolutions in Science, and a Probabilistic Revolution 1800–1930.” In Krüger et al. 1987, 23–44.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T. 1994. Quantum Mechanics, Historical Contingency and the “Copenhagen” Hegemony. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T., and McMullin, E., eds. 1989. Philosophical Consequences of Quantum Theory: Reflections on Bell's Theorem., Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Cushing, J. T., Fine, A., and Goldstein, S., eds. 1996. Bohmian Mechanics and Quantum Theory: An Appraisal. Dordrecht: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darrigol, O. 1992. From c-Numbers to q-Numbers: The Classical Analogy in the History of Quantum Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 1986. A Primer on Determinism. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Earman, J. 1993. “Carnap, Kuhn and the Philosophy of Scientific Methodology.” In Horwich 1993, 9–36.Google Scholar
Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N.. 1935. “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 47:777–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1970. “Consolation for the Specialist.” In Lakatosh and Mus- grave 1970, 197–230.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K. 1975. Against Method. New Left Books.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. K.. 1981. Problems of Empiricism. Philosophical Papers 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fine, A. 1986. The Shaky Game: Einstein, Realism and the Quantum Theory. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, D. 1987. “All Is Flux,” In Quantum Implications: Essays in Honour of David Bohm, edited by Hiley, B. T. and Peat, F. D.. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 1983. “Carnap's Aufbau Reconsidered.” Nous 21:521–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuller, S. 1994. “Teaching Thomas Kuhn to Teach the Cold War Vision of Science.” Contention 4(1):81–105.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., A, Rimini, and Weber, T.. 1986. Physical Review D34:470–91.Google Scholar
Gillies, D. 1992. “Are There Revolutions in Mathematics?” In Gillies, 1992.Google Scholar
Gillies, D. 1992. Revolutions in Mathematics. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Gutting, G. 1980. Paradigms and Revolutions: Appraisals and Applications of Thomas Kuhn's Philosophy of Science., London: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1992. “The Self-Vindication of the Laboratory Sciences.” In Pickering 1992.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. N. 1958. Patterns of Discovery. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, R. N.. 1959. “Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Theory.” American Journal of Physics 27(1): 1–15. Revised version of paper delivered at the 1958 meeting of the American Philosophical Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilbron, L., and Kuhn, T. S.. 1969. “The Genesis of the Bohr Atom.” Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences 1:211–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W. 1925. “Quantentheoretische Umdeutung Kinematischer und Mechanischer Beziehungen.” Zeitschrift für Physik 33:879–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W.. 1948. “Der Begriff ‘Abgeschlossene Theorie’ in der modernen Naturwissenschaft.” Dialectica 2:331–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W.. [1952] 1979. Philosophical Problems of Quantum Physics. Woodbridge, Conn.: Ox Bow Press. Originally published as Philosophical Problems of Nuclear Science, Pantheon Books (a collection of Heisenberg's essays 1934–48).Google Scholar
Heisenberg, W.. 1958. Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Horgan, J. 1991. “Profile — Reluctant Revolutionary.” Scientific American, May: 14–15.Google Scholar
Horwich, P. 1993. World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Howard, D. A. 1990. “Einstein and Duhem.” In Pierre Duhem: Historian and Philosopher of Science, edited by Ariev, R. and Barker, P.. Synthèse 83:363–84.Google Scholar
Howard, D. A.. 1993. “Was Einstein Really A Realist?” Perspectives on Science 1:204–51.Google Scholar
Kellert, S. M. 1993. In the Wake of Chaos. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, M. 1977. “The Beginnings of Quantum Theory.” In History of Twentieth-Century Physics, edited by Weiner, C.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. [1968] 1943. “Galileo and Plato.” In idem, Metaphysics and Measurement. London: Originally published in Journal for the History of ideas 4:400–47.Google Scholar
Koyré, A.. 1957. From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Krüger, L., Daston, L. J., and Heidelberger, M.. 1987. The Probabilistic Revolution. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1957. “The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy.” In The Development of Western Thought., Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. [1959] 1977. “The Essential Tension: Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research.” In Proceedings of the Third University of Utah Research Conference on the Identification of Scientific Talent, edited by Taylor, C. W.. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. 1963. “The Function of Dogma'in Scientific Research.”In Scientific Change, edited by Crombie, A. C., 347–69, 386–95. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. [1964] 1977. “A Function for Thought Experiments.” In idem, Melangés Alexandre Koyré, 1:307–34. Paris: Hermann. Reprinted in Kuhn 1977, 240–65.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed., enl. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. [1971] 1977. “The Relations between History and the History of Science.” Daedalus 100:271–304. Reprinted in Kuhn 1977, 127–61.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. 1977. The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. 1978. Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. 1987. “What Are Scientific Revolutions?” In Krcger et al. 1987, 7–22.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. 1991. “?The Road Since Structure.” In, Vol. 2, 3–13. East Lansing: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S.. 1993. “Afterwords.” In Horwich 1993, 311–41.Google Scholar
Lakatosh, I., and Musgrave, A., eds. 1970. Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Masterman, M. 1970. “The Nature of a Paradigm.” In Lakatosh and Musgrave 1970, 59–90.Google Scholar
Maudlin, T. 1996. “Kuhn Defanged: Incommensurability and Theory Choice.” In Revue Philosophique de Louvain.Google Scholar
Mauskopf, S.M. Forthcoming. Overview of the Chemical Revolution.Google Scholar
Pickering, A., ed. 1992. Science as Practice and Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ryckman, T. A. 1991. “Condition sine qua non? Zuordnung in the Early Epistemologies of Cassirer and Schlick.” Synthese 88:57–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmitt, C. 1983. Aristotle and the Renaissance. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schrödinger, E. 1935. “Die Gegenwärtinge Situation in der Quantenmechanik.” Naturwissenschaften 23:807–28,844–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
von Weizsäcker, C. F. 1987. “Heisenberg's Philosophy.” In Symposium on the Foundations of Modern Physics, edited by Lahti, P. and Mittelstaedt, P., 277–293. Singapore: World Scientific.Google Scholar
Wessels, L. 1989. “The Way the World Isn't: What the Bell Theorems Force Us to Give Up.” In Cushing and McMullin 1989, 80–96.Google Scholar
Wessels, L. 1983. “Erwin Schrodinger and the Descriptive Tradition,” in Aris, R. et al. (ed.), The Springs of Scientific Creativity, pp. 254–278.Google Scholar
Westfall, R. S. 1985. “Science and Patronage: Galileo and the Telescope.” ISIS 76:11–30.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. 1994. “Two Cultures or One? A Second Look at Kuhn's The Copernican Revolution .” ISIS 85:79–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yzzik, G., and Grcnberg, T.. 1995. “Carnap and Kuhn: Arch Enemies or Close Allies.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science:Google Scholar