Book contents
- Interpreting Kuhn
- Interpreting Kuhn
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Foundational Issues
- Part II Three Core Concepts
- Part III Kuhnian Themes
- Chapter 8 The Copernican Revolution since Kuhn
- Chapter 9 Kuhn, the Duck, and the Rabbit – Perception, Theory-Ladenness, and Creativity in Science
- Chapter 10 Kuhn on Scientific Discovery as Endogenous
- Chapter 11 Truth, Incoherence, and the Evolution of Science
- Chapter 12 Reassessing Kuhn’s Theoretical Monism
- Bibliography
- Index
Chapter 12 - Reassessing Kuhn’s Theoretical Monism
Addressing the Pluralists’ Challenge
from Part III - Kuhnian Themes
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 June 2021
- Interpreting Kuhn
- Interpreting Kuhn
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Contributors
- Acknowledgments
- Abbreviations
- Introduction
- Part I Foundational Issues
- Part II Three Core Concepts
- Part III Kuhnian Themes
- Chapter 8 The Copernican Revolution since Kuhn
- Chapter 9 Kuhn, the Duck, and the Rabbit – Perception, Theory-Ladenness, and Creativity in Science
- Chapter 10 Kuhn on Scientific Discovery as Endogenous
- Chapter 11 Truth, Incoherence, and the Evolution of Science
- Chapter 12 Reassessing Kuhn’s Theoretical Monism
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Scientific specialties are the key unit of analysis in Kuhn’s theory of scientific change. Kuhn believed that scientific specialties, in their normal phases, are characterized by theoretical monism. This is what makes scientists so efficient in realizing their epistemic goals. Recent work in the philosophy of scientific practice raises questions about the extent to which there is or needs to be consensus in science, thus challenging a key dimension of Kuhn’s view. Hasok Chang has been a leader in this project, focusing attention on the benefits of pluralism. I argue that Chang and other pluralists are overcorrecting. I argue that a variety of types of pluralism can be reconciled with theoretical monism, and that theoretical monism serves significant functions, aiding scientists in the effective pursuit of their epistemic goals. Thus, I aim to set limits to pluralism. I argue that Kuhn’s theoretical monism not only has room for the sort of pluralism that Chang and others aims to defend, I also show that it presupposes such forms of pluralism.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Interpreting KuhnCritical Essays, pp. 222 - 237Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021