Abbott, A. 2001. Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Abrams, S. 1995a. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated 13 March 1995,” in the TSK Archives. Box 21: Folder 1, Correspondence, Abrams, Susan.Google Scholar

Abrams, S. 1995b. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated 20 June 1995,” in the TSK Archives. Box 21: Folder 1, Correspondence, Abrams, Susan.Google Scholar

Akers, R. L. 1992. “Linking Sociology and Its Specialties: The Case of Criminology,” Social Forces 71:1, 1–16.Google Scholar

Almond, G. A. 1966. “Political Theory and Political Science,” American Political Science Review LX:4, 869–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, H. 2001. On Kuhn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar

Andersen, Hanne. 2001. “Kuhn, Conant, and Everything – A Full or Fuller Account,” Philosophy of Science 68:2, 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andresen, Jensine. 1999. “Crisis and Kuhn,” Isis 90 (Supplement), S43–S67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arabatzis, Theodore. 2001. “Can a Historian of Science Be a Scientific Realist?,” Philosophy of Science 68:3 (Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers), S531–S541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ayer, A. J. 1959. “Editor’s Introduction,” in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 3–28. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Babich, Babette E. 2003. “From Fleck’s Denkstil to Kuhn’s Paradigms: Conceptual Schemes and Incommensurability,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17:1, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baltes, P. B., and Nesselroade, J. R.. 1984. “Paradigm Lost and Paradigm Regained: Critique of Dannefer’s Portrayal of Life-Span Developmental Psychology,” American Sociological Review 49:6, 841–847.Google Scholar

Barber, B. 1987. “The Emergence and Maturation of the Sociology of Science,” Science & Technology Studies 5:3/4, 129–133.Google Scholar

Barnes, B. 1974. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Barnes, B. 1982. T. S. Kuhn and Social Science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Barnes, B., and Bloor, D.. 1982. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge,” in Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, pp. 21–47. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Barnes, Barry, Bloor, David and Henry, John. 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bartlett, P. D. 1983. “James Bryant Conant, 1893–1978: A Biographical Memoir by Paul D. Bartlett,” in National Academy of Sciences, Biographical Memoir, pp. 89–124. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar

Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2005. “Chemistry in the French Tradition of Philosophy of Science: Duhem, Meyerson, Metzger and Bachelard,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 627–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Biddle, Justin. 2011. “Putting Pragmatism to Work in the Cold War: Science, Technology, and Politics in the Writings of James B. Conant,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 522–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bird, A. 2000. Thomas Kuhn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bird, A. 2015. “Kuhn and the Historiography of Science,” in Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 23–38. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Birner, J. 2018. “Karl Popper’s The Poverty of Historicism After 60 Years,” Metascience 27:2, 183–193.Google Scholar

Blaug, M. 1976. “Kuhn Versus Lakatos, or Paradigms Versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics,” in Latsis, S. J. (ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics, pp. 149–180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bleaney, B. 1982. “John Hasbrouck Van Vleck. 13 March 1899. 27 October 1980,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 28 (November), 627–665.Google Scholar

Bloor, D. 1975. “Course Bibliography: A Philosophical Approach to Science,” Social Studies of Science 5: 507–517.Google Scholar

Blumenthal, Geoffrey. 2013. “Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution: A Reassessment,”Foundations of Chemistry 15: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohr, Niels. 1948. “On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity,” Dialectica 2:2–3, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bornmann, L., Wray, K. B. and Haunschild, R.. 2020. “Citation Concept Analysis (CAA) – A New Form of Citation Analysis Revealing the Usefulness of Concepts for Other Researchers Illustrated by Exemplary Case Studies Including Classic Books by Thomas S. Kuhn and Karl R. Popper,” Scientometrics 122:2, 1051–1074.Google Scholar

Boyd, Richard N. 1985. “Lex Orandi est Lex Credendi,” in Churchland, Paul M. and Hooker, Clifford A. (eds.), Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, pp. 3–34. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Brasch, Frederick E. 1915, November 26. “The Teaching of the History of Science,” Science 42:1091, 746–760.Google Scholar

Breiger, R. L. 2005. “White, Harrison,” in Encyclopedia of Social Theory, pp. 885–886. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar

Brorson, Stig, and Andersen, Hanne. 2001. “Stabilizing and Changing Phenomenal Worlds: Ludwik Fleck and Thomas Kuhn on Scientific Literature,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 32:1, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brush, S. G. 2000. “Thomas Kuhn as Historian of Science,” Science & Education 9, 39–58.Google Scholar

Burian, R. M. 1977. “More than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science,” Philosophy of Science 44:1, 1–42.Google Scholar

Burian, R. M. 2001. “The Dilemma of Case Studies Resolved: The Virtues of Using Case Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science,” Perspectives on Science 9:4, 383–404.Google Scholar

Burman, J. T. 2020. “On Kuhn’s Case, and Piaget’s: A Critical Two-Sited Hauntology (Or, on Impact Without Reference),” History of the Human Science 33:3–4, 129–159.Google Scholar

Bush, V. 1946/1975. Endless Horizons. New York, NY: Arno Press.Google Scholar

Cammack, P. 1990. “A Critical Assessment of the New Elite Paradigm,” American Sociological Review 55, 415–420.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. 1932/1959. “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language,” in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 60–81. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf. 1956. “The Methodological Status of Theoretical Concepts,” in Feigl, Herbert and Scriven (eds.), Michael, The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis, pp. 38–75. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Cavell, S. 2010. Little Did I Know: Excerpts from Memory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Cedarbaum, Daniel G. 1983. “Paradigms,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14:3, 173–213.Google Scholar

Chang, Hasok. 2015. “The Chemical Revolution Revisited,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 49, 91–98.Google Scholar

Chang, Hasok, and Cartwright, Nancy. 2014. “Measurement,” in Curd, Martin and Psillos, Stathis (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, 2nd ed., pp. 411–419. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Coats, A. W. 1969. “Is There a ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ in Economics?,” Kyklos: International Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaften 22:2, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cohen, I. Bernard. 1985. Revolution in Science. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cole, J. R., and Zuckerman, H.. 1975. “The Emergence of a Scientific Specialty: The Self-Exemplifying Case of the Sociology of Science,” in Coser, L. A. (ed.), The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, pp. 139–174. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar

Cole, Stephen. 1992. Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Collodel, M. 2016. “Was Feyerabend a Popperian? Methodological Issues in the History of the Philosophy of Science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 27–56.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. 1946/1947. “Preface,” in James B. Conant (ed.) On Understanding Science: An Historical Approach. pp. xi–xv. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. 1947. On Understanding Science: An Historical Approach. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. 1950/1965. “Foreword,” in Conant, James B. (ed.), Robert Boyle’s Experiments in Pneumatics: Case 1 in the Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. 1953. Modern Science and Modern Man. Garden City, NY: A Doubleday Anchor Book.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. (ed.) 1955. The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775–1789. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. 1957. “Foreword,” in Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, pp. xiii–xviii. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. 1961. “Letter from James B. Conant to Kuhn, June 5, 1961,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. 1962. “Letter from James B. Conant to Kuhn, December 19, 1962,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Correspondence C-D; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. 1970. My Several Lives: Memoirs of a Social Inventor. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar

Conant, James and Haugeland, John. 2000. “Editors’ Introduction,” in James Conant and John Haugeland (eds.), Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 1–9. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Conant, Jennet. 2017. Man of the Hour: James B. Conant, Warrior Scientist. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar

Creath, R. 2007. “Vienna, the City of Quine’s Dreams,” in Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, pp. 332–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Curd, , Martin, J. A. Cover and Pincock, Christopher. 2013. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 2nd ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar

D’Agostino, F. 2005. “Kuhn’s Risk-Spreading Argument and the Organization of Scientific Communities,” Episteme 1:3, 201–209.Google Scholar

Daston, L. 2016. “History of Science without Structure,” in Richards, R. J. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Scientific Classic, pp. 115–132. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald. 1973–1974. “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47: 5–24.Google Scholar

Devlin, William J., and Bokulich, Alisa (eds.). 2015. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Dicken, Paul. 2016. A Critical Introduction to Scientific Realism. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar

DiSalle, R. 2002. “Reconsidering Kant, Friedman, Logical Positivism, and the Exact Sciences,” Philosophy of Science 69: 191–211.Google Scholar

Doppelt, Gerald. 1978. “Kuhn’s Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense,” Inquiry 21: 33–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Doppelt, Gerald. 2013. “Explaining the Success of Science: Kuhn and Scientific Realists,” Topoi 32: 43–51.Google Scholar

Duhem, Pierre. 1893/1996. “The English School and Physical Theories,” in Duhem, Pierre, Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science, translated and ed. by Ariew, Roger and Barker, Peter, pp. 50–74. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Duhem, Pierre. 1915/1996. “Some Reflections in German Science,” in Duhem, Pierre, Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science, translated and ed. by Ariew, Roger and Barker, Peter, pp. 251–276. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Dupree, A. H., and Kuhn, T. S.. 1958. “Teaching the History of Science,” Isis 49:2, 172–173.Google Scholar

Durkheim, É. 1930/1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociology, translated by Spaulding, J. A. and Simpson, G.. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Easlea, B. 1973. “Bibliography: An Introduction to the History and Social Studies of Science: A Seminar Course for First-Year Science Students,” Science Studies 3: 185–209.Google Scholar

Edge, David. 1967. “Letter to Professor Kuhn – Dated 13 November 1967,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 12: Social Studies of Science, 1970–1976.Google Scholar

Edge, David. 1969. “Letter to Professor Kuhn – Dated 4th December 1969,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 12: Social Studies of Science, 1970–1976.Google Scholar

Eckberg, D. L., and Hill, L., Jr. 1979. “The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review,” American Sociological Review 44: 925–937.Google Scholar

Edmonds, D. 2020. The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Edmonds, D., and Eidinow, J.. 2002. Wittgenstein’s Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers. New York, NY: Ecco.Google Scholar

Farley, John, and Geison, Gerald L.. 1974. “Science, Politics and Spontaneous Generation in Nineteenth-Century France: The Pasteur–Pouchet Debate,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 48: 161–198.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. 1958/1981. “An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Experience,” in Feyerabend, Paul K., Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, pp. 17–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. 1960/1981. “On the Interpretation of Scientific Theories,” in Feyerabend, Paul K., Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, pp. 37–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. 1964/1981. “Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments on the Logic of Factual Support,” in Feyerabend, Paul K., Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, pp. 176–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1968/1999. “Letter to Imre Lakatos, Saturday, end of March 1968,” in Lakatos, I. and Feyerabend, P., For and Against Method: Including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, edited and with an introduction by Motterlini, M., pp. 141–142. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1969/1999. “Letter to Imre Lakatos, 17 October 1969,” in Lakatos, I. and Feyerabend, P., For and Against Method: Including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos–Feyerabend Correspondence, edited and with an introduction by Motterlini, M., pp. 180–181. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, P. 1970. “Consolations for the Specialist,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, volume 4, pp. 197–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Field, G. L., and Higley, J.. 1980. Elitism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Fleck, L. 1935/1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, edited by Trenn, T. J. and Merton, R. K., translated by Bradley, F. and Trenn, T. J., with a Foreword by Kuhn, T. S.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Forbes, Curtis. 2017. “A Pragmatic Existentialist Approach to the Scientific Realism Debate,” Synthese 194:9, 3327–3346.Google Scholar

Forrester, John. 2007. “On Kuhn’s Case: Psychoanalysis and the Paradigm,” Critical Inquiry 33: 782–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Frank, Philipp. 1949/1961. “Introduction: Historical Background,” in Frank (ed.), Philipp, Modern Science and Its Philosophy, pp. 13–61. New York, NY: Collier Books.Google Scholar

Frank, Philipp. 1952. “Letter to Professor Tom Kuhn – December 2, 1952,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication.Google Scholar

Franklin, Allan. 1986. The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

French, R., and Gross, M.. 1973. “A Survey of North American Graduate Students in the History of Science 1970–71,” Science Studies 3: 161–171.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. 2001. Dynamics of Reason: The 1999 Kant Lectures at Stanford University. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar

Friedman, M. 2003. “Kuhn and Logical Empiricism,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 19–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, S. 2000. Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, Steve. 2004. Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Galison, P. 2016. “Practice All the Way Down,” in Richards, R. J. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Scientific Classic, pp. 42–69. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Galison, P. 1981. “Kuhn and the Quantum Controversy,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32:1, 71–85.Google Scholar

Gattei, G. 2008. Thomas Kuhn’s “Linguistic Turn” and the Legacy of Logical Positivism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Giere, R. N. 1973. “History and Philosophy of Science: Intimate Relationship or Marriage of Convenience?,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24:3, 282–297.Google Scholar

Giere, R. 1997. “Kuhn’s Legacy for North American Philosophy of Science,” Social Studies of Science, 27: 496–498.Google Scholar

Giere, Ronald N. 2013. “Kuhn as Perspectival Realist,” Topoi 32: 53–57.Google Scholar

Gillispie, C. C. 1962. “The Nature of Science: Normal Science Is Succeeded by a Creative Phase of Revolution Out of Which New Concepts Emerge,” Science, 138 (December 14, 1962), 1251–1253.Google Scholar

Gillispie, C. C. 1993. “Letter to Tom – Dated 31 January 1993,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 21: Folder 35, Correspondence, Gillispie, Charles.Google Scholar

Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gordon, Peter E. 2012. “Agonies of the Real: Anti-Realism from Kuhn to Foucault,” Modern Intellectual History 9:1, 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Grandy, R. E. 2003. “Kuhn’s World Changes,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 246–260. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Grene, Marjorie. 1963. “Letter from Marjorie Grene to Kuhn, September 25, 1963,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 9, Correspondence E-G; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar

Gutting, G. 2003. “Thomas Kuhn and French Philosophy of Science,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 45–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian. 1981. “Do We See with a Microscope?,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62:4, 305–322.Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 2012. “Introductory Essay,” in Kuhn, T. S., Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed., vii–xxxvii. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, I. 2016. “Paradigms,” in Richards, Robert J. and Daston, Lorraine (eds.),Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic, 96–112. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hacohen, Malachi H. 2002. Karl Popper – The Formative Years, 1902–1945: Politics and Philosophy in Interwar Vienna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hall, Richard J. 1970. “Kuhn and the Copernican Revolution,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21:2, 196–197.Google Scholar

Hallberg, M. 2017. “Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science: Mary Hesse (1924–2016),” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 48: 161–171.Google Scholar

Hamlin, Christopher. 2016. “The Pedagogical Roots of the History of Science: Revisiting the Vision of James Bryant Conant.” Isis 107:2, 282–308.Google Scholar

Hayek, F. 1964. “The Theory of Complex Phenomena,” in Bunge, M. A. (ed.), The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy, pp. 332–349. Glencoe, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar

Heilbron, J. L. 1968. “Quantum Historiography and the Archive for History of Quantum Physics,” History of Science 7: 90–111.Google Scholar

Heilbron, J. L. 1998. “Thomas Samuel Kuhn, 18 July 1922 – 17 June 1996.” Isis 89:3, 505–515.Google Scholar

Herring, Pendleton. 1959. “Letter to Professor Thomas Kuhn – Dated December 7, 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 23: Lecture/Meetings: Berkeley Social Science Colloquium, 1956.Google Scholar

Hershberg, James G. 1993. James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar

Herschbach, D. R. 2014. “Theodore William Richards: Apostle of Atomic Weights and Nobel Prize Winner in 1914,” Angewandte Chemie 53: 13,982–13,987.Google Scholar

Hesse, Mary 1963. “Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn,” Isis 54:2, 286–287.Google Scholar

Hesse, Mary. 1976. “Truth and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 261–280.Google Scholar

Hesse, Mary. 1980. Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar

Hesse, M. 1982a. “Comments on the Papers of David Bloor and Steven Lukes,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4: 325–331.Google Scholar

Hesse, M. 1982b. “Comment on Kuhn’s ‘Commensurability, Comparability, and Communicability,’” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982, Vol. Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1982), pp. 704–711.Google Scholar

Hesse, Mary. 2002. Hesse, Mary (1924–2016), Text of speech made on 21/6/02. Held at Cambridge, Whipple Library. Hesse Papers, MH2.22.Google Scholar

Howard, D. 2004. “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’? A Study in Mythology,” Philosophy of Science 71:5 (Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of the PSA, Part II: Symposia Papers), 669–682.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1989/1993. Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science, translated by A. T. Levine, with a foreword by Kuhn, T. S.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1992. “The Interrelations between the Philosophy, History and Sociology of Science in Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Development,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43, 487–501.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2005. “Three Biographies: Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Incommensurability,” in Harris (ed.), R. A, Rhetoric and Incommensurability, pp. 150–175. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2006. “More Letters from Paul Feyerabend to Thomas S. Kuhn on Proto-Structure,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37, 610–632.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2008. “Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution,” Foundations of Chemistry 10: 101–105.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P. 2015. “Kuhn’s Development Before and After Structure,” in Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, Vol. 311, pp. 185–195. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, P., and Sankey, H. (eds.). 2001. Incommensurability and Related Matters, Vol. 216, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar

Hufbauer, Karl. 2012. “From Student of Physics to Historian of Science: T. S. Kuhn’s Education and Early Career, 1940–1958,” Physics in Perspective, 14: 421–470.Google Scholar

Irzik, G. 2012. “Kuhn and Logical Positivism: Gaps, Silences, and Tactics of SSR,” in Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 15–40. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Isaac, Joel. 2012. Working Knowledge: Making the Human Sciences from Parsons to Kuhn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Struan. 2007. “Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn: Priority and Credit,” Tradition and Discovery, 33:2, 25–36.Google Scholar

Jacobs, Struan. 2010. “J. B. Conant’s Other Assistant: Science as Depicted by Leonard K. Nash, Including Reference to Thomas Kuhn,” Perspectives on Science 18:3, 328–351.Google Scholar

James, William. 1907/1949. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Together with Four Related Essays Selected from The Meaning of Truth. New York, NY: Longmans Green and Co.Google Scholar

Joergensen, Joergen. 1970. “The Development of Logical Empiricism,” in Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf and Morris, Charles (eds.), Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Volume 2, pp. 845–946. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kahneman, D. 2003. “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics,” American Economic Review 93:5, 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kaiser, D. 2016. “Thomas Kuhn and the Psychology of Scientific Revolutions,” in Richards, R. J. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Scientific Classic, pp. 71–95. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kaiserlian, P. 1986. “Letter to Professor Thomas Kuhn – June 12, 1986,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication.Google Scholar

Kevles, D. J. 1977. “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945: A Political Reinterpretation of Science – The Endless Frontier,” Isis 68:1, 4–26.Google Scholar

Kindi, Vasso. 2017. “Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Science,” in Glock, Hans-Johann and Hyman, John (eds.), A Companion to Wittgenstein, pp. 587–602. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Kindi, Vasso, and Arabatzis, Theodore (eds.). 2012. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Klein, M. J. 1979. “Paradigm Lost? A Review Symposium,” Isis 70:253, 430–434.Google Scholar

Kosiński, J. 1970. Being There. London: The Bodley Head.Google Scholar

Kourany, Janet A. 1998. Scientific Knowledge: Basic Issues in the Philosophy of Science, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1949. “Notebook” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 1: Folder 7, Notes and Ideas, 1949; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1951a. “Newton’s ‘31st Query’ and the Degradation of Gold.” Isis, 42:4, 296–298.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1951b. “The Quest for Physical Theory,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 3, Lectures, Lowell Institute, 1950–51.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1952. “Robert Boyle and Structural Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century.” Isis 43:1, 12–36.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1953. “Letter to Charles Morris – Dated July 31, 1953,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) – Correspondence, pre-publication, 1952–1962.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. S. 1956/1957. “Preface,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, pp. vii–x. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. S. 1957. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1958. “Letter to Professor R. K. Merton – Dated September 16, 1958,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 22: Correspondence: Merton, Robert K.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1959a. “Letter to Ralph W. Tyler, Director – Dated July 31, 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 14: Folder 15, Center for Advanced Study, 1959.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1959b. “Letter to Dr. Pendleton Herring – Dated 21 December 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 14: Folder 15, Center for Advanced Study, 1959.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1959c. “Letter to Professor Robert K. Merton – Dated 7 December 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 23: Lecture/Meetings: Berkeley Social Science Colloquium, 1956.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1959/1977. “Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery,” in Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 66–104. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1961a. “Letter to Mr. Carroll G. Bowen – Dated 18 June 1961,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1961b. “Letter to Dr. James B. Conant – Dated 5 August 1961,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1961/1977. “The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science,” in Thomas Kuhn, Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 178–224. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1962/2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed., with an introductory essay by Hacking, Ian. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. “Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery,” Science 136:3518 (June 1, 1962), pp. 760–764.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1963. “Letter to George Stigler – Dated 24 October 1963,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 15, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Correspondence S. Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1966a. “Letter to Miss Margaret Masterman – Dated 1 June 1966,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 11: Correspondence: Masterman, Margaret.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T, S. 1966b. “Lecture Notes: Phil – Hum 537, Meeting #1 – 2/11/66,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 2: Folder 10, Development of Scientific Knowledge 537: 1966.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1968/1977. “The History of Science,” in Kuhn, T. S., Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 105–126. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1969/1977. “Comments on the Relations of Science and Art,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 340–351. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. S. 1969/2012. “Postscript – 1969,” in Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed., with an introductory essay by Hacking, Ian, pp. 173–208. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1970/1977. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 266–292. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1970/2000. “Reflections on My Critics,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. pp. 123–175. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1971/1977. “The Relations between History and the History of Science,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 127–161. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1972. “Letter to Professor John L. Heilbron – 5 September 1972,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 21: Folder 40, Correspondence: Heilbron, John.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1973. “Letter to Professor Kandall – 20 June 1973,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 11, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Correspondence K–L.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1973/1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 320–339. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1974/1977. “Second Thoughts on Paradigms,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 293–319. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1976. “Letter to David Edge – Dated 21 July 1976,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC 240, Box 12: Social Studies of Science, 1970–1976.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1976/1977a. “The Relations Between the History and the Philosophy of Science,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 3–20. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1976/1977b. “Mathematical versus Experimental Traditions in the Development of Physical Science,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 31–65. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1977. “Preface,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. ix–xxiii. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas. S. 1978/1987. Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1979. “Foreword,” in Fleck, L., Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, edited by Trenn, T. J. and Merton, R. K., translated by F. Bradley and T. J. Trenn, pp. vii–xi. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1979/2000. “Metaphor in Science,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and Haugeland, John, pp. 196–207. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1983a. “Reflections on Receiving the John Desmond Bernal Award,” 4S Review 1:4, 26–30.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1983b. “Letter to Professor Ernan McMullin – Dated March 29, 1983,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 22: Correspondence: McMullin, Ernan.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1984a. “Professionalization Recollected in Tranquility,” Isis 75 (1): 29–32.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1984b. “Scientific Development and Lexical Change: The Thalheimer Lectures,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 23: Lectures/Meetings: Thalheimer Lectures, Scientific Development and Lexical Change, [2 folders] 1984.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1986. “Letter to Kenneth Grau – Dated 24 June 1986,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 16, Advice, 1986–1987.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1987/2000. “What Are Scientific Revolutions?,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, J. and Haugeland, J., pp. 13–32. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1989. “Proposal to the National Science Foundation: 1 August 1989,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 12, NSF Research Reports (1 of 2 files).Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1989/2000. “Possible Worlds in the History of Science,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and Haugeland, John, pp. 58–89. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1990/2016. “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge: An Interview with Thomas S. Kuhn,” in Blum, A., Gavroglu, K., Joas, C. and Renn, J. (eds.), Shifting Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science, pp. 17–30. Edition Open Access, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. Berlin: Neopubli GmbH.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1991. “Letter to Jigang Wei – Dated 9 September 1991,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 40, Correspondence, W.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1991/2000a. “The Road since Structure,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and Haugeland, John, pp. 90–104. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1991/2000b. “The Natural and the Human Sciences,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and Haugeland, John, pp. 216–223. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1992. “Letter to Mr. Frederick L. Whitaker – Dated 15 January 1992,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 40, Correspondence, W.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1992/2000. “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science,” in Kuhn’s, T. S. The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, J. and Haugeland, J., pp. 105–120. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1993a. “Letter to Professor J. van Brakel – Dated 30 May 1993,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 39, Correspondence, V.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S. 1993b. “Letter to Professor C.C. Gillispie – Dated 13 February 1993,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 21: Folder 35, Correspondence: Gillispie, Charles.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. 1997/2000. “A Discussion with Thomas S. Kuhn,” in The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays. 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and John, Haugeland, pp. 255–323. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, T. S., Heilbron, J. L., Forman, P. and Allen, L.. 1967. Sources for History of Quantum Physics. American Philosophical Society, Memoir 68. https://amphilsoc.org/guides/ahqp/index.htm (accessed July 29, 2020).Google Scholar

Kusch, Martin. 2015. “Scientific Pluralism and the Chemical Revolution,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 49: 69–79.Google Scholar

Ladyman, J. 1998. “What Is Structural Realism?,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29:3, 409–424.Google Scholar

Lakatos, Imre. 1970/1972. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Volume 4, pp. 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1979/1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, Larry. 1981. “Confutation of Convergent Realism,” Philosophy of Science 48, 19–49.Google Scholar

Laudan, L. 1984. Science and Values: The Aims of Science and their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Leijonhufvud, A. 1976. “Schools, ‘Revolutions,’ and Research Programmes in Economic Theories,” in Latsis, S. J. (ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics, pp. 65–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Leontief, W. 1964. “Letter to Thomas Kuhn,” in Kuhn, Thomas S. Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 11, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Correspondence K-L. Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Little, D. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.Google Scholar

Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Mach, Ernst. 1893/1960. The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development, translated by McCormack, T. J., 6th ed. with revisions through the ninth German edition. La Salle, IL: The Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar

Marcionis, J. J. 1997. Sociology, 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Marcum, James A. 2015. Thomas Kuhn’s Revolutions: A Historical and an Evolutionary Philosophy of Science? London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Martin, P. S. 1971. “The Revolution in Archaeology,” American Antiquity 36:1, 1–8.Google Scholar

Massimi, Michela. 2015. “Walking the Line: Kuhn Between Realism and Relativism,” in Devlin, William J. and Bokulich, Alisa (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 311, pp. 135–152. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar

Masterman, M. 1966. “Letter to Professor T. S. Kuhn – 8 June 1966,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 11: Correspondence: Masterman, Margaret.Google Scholar

Masterman, M. 1970/1972. “The Nature of a Paradigm,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. IV, reprinted with corrections, pp. 59–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Matthews, M. R. 2003. “Thomas Kuhn’s Impact on Science Education: What Lessons Can Be Learned?,” Science Education 88:1, 90–118.Google Scholar

Mauskopf, Seymour H. 2012. “Thomas S. Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 42:5, 551–556.Google Scholar

Maxwell, Grover. 1962. “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities,” in Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, pp. 3–27. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Mayr, E. 1994. “The Advance of Science and Scientific Revolutions,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30, 328–334.Google Scholar

McEvoy, John G. 2010/2016. The Historiography of the Chemical Revolution. Routledge: London.Google Scholar

McMichael, Alan. 1985. “Van Fraassen’s Instrumentalism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36, 257–272.Google Scholar

McMullin, E. 1976. “History and Philosophy of Science: A Marriage of Convenience?,” in Cohen, R. S., Hooker, C. A., Michalos, A. C. and Evra, J. W. Van (eds.), PSA 1974. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32, pp. 585–681. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

McMullin, Ernan. 1982. “Values in Science,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982, Vol. 1982, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1982), 3–28.Google Scholar

McMullin, Ernan. 1992. “Rationality and Paradigm Change in Science,” in Horwich, Paul (ed.), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, pp. 55–78. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Melogno, P., and Courtoisie, A.. 2019. “Stepping into the 60s: Tomas [sic] Kuhn’s Intellectual Turn towards the Philosophy of Science,” Daimon: Revista Internacional de Filosofía 76: 23–33.Google Scholar

Meltzer, D. J. 1979. “Paradigms and the Nature of Change in American Archaeology,” American Antiquity 44:4, 644–657.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1949/1996. “Manifest and Latent Functions,” in Merton, R. K., On Social Structure and Science, edited by Sztompka, P., pp. 87–95. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1957/1973. “Priorities in Scientific Discovery,” in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W., pp. 286–324. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Merton, Robert K. 1959. “Letter to Tom – Dated 25 May 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 23: Lecture/Meetings: Berkeley Social Science Colloquium, 1956.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1961/1973. “Singletons and Multiples in Science,” in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W., pp. 343–370. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1963/1973. “Multiple Discoveries as a Strategic Research Site,” in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W., pp. 371–382. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1968/1973. “The Matthew Effect in Science,” in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W., pp. 439–459. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1975. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated 16 April 1975,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 22: Correspondence: Merton, Robert K.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1976. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated 18 February 1976,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 22: Correspondence: Merton, Robert K.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1977. The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. 1988. “The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property,” Isis 79:4, 606–623.Google Scholar

Merton, R. K. and Barber, E.. 2004. The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Mirowski, Philip. 2005. “Hoedown at the OK Corral: More Reflections on the ‘Social’ in Current Philosophy of Science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36, 790–800.Google Scholar

Mizrahi, M. 2020. “The Case Study Method in Philosophy of Science: An Empirical Study,” Perspectives on Science 28:1, 63–88.Google Scholar

Mladenović, B. 2017. Kuhn’s Legacy: Epistemology, Metaphilosophy, Pragmatism. New York, NY: Columbia University.Google Scholar

Moleski, Martin X. 2007. “Polanyi vs. Kuhn: Worldviews Apart,” Tradition and Discovery 33:2, 8–24.Google Scholar

Möβner, Nicola. 2011. “Thought Styles and Paradigms – A Comparative Study of Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn,” Studies in History of Philosophy of Science, 42:2, 362–371.Google Scholar

Mullins, Phil. 2002. “On Persons and Knowledge: Marjorie Grene and Michael Polanyi,” in R. E. Auxier and L. E. Hahn (eds.), The Philosophy of Marjorie Grene, pp. 31–60. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Mullins, Phil. 2009/2010. “In Memoriam: Marjorie Grene,” Tradition & Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical 36:1, 55–69.Google Scholar

Nagel, E. 1936a. “Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe, I,” Journal of Philosophy 33:1, 5–24.Google Scholar

Nagel, E. 1936b. “Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe, II,” Journal of Philosophy 33:2, 29–53.Google Scholar

Nagel, E. 1939. Principles of the Theory of Probability, 1:6, of International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Nash, Leonard K. 1950/1957. “The Atomic-Molecular Theory,” in James B. Conant and Leonard K. Nash (ed.), Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, Vol. I, pp. 215–321. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Nash, Leonard K. 1957. “Letter to Thomas Kuhn – Dated 10 April 1957,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 11: Folder 48, Correspondence with Individuals, Nash, Leonard, 1957–63.Google Scholar

Nash, Leonard K. 1963. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated May 24, 1963,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 11: Folder 48, Correspondence with Individuals, Nash, Leonard, 1957–63.Google Scholar

Neubarth, N. L., Emanuel, Alan J., Liu, Yin et al. 2020. “Meissner Corpuscles and their Spatial Intermingled Afferents Underlie Gentle Touch Perception,” Science 368 (June 19, 2020).Google Scholar

Neuber, Matthias. 2011. “Feigl’s ‘Scientific Realism,’” Philosophy of Science 78:1, 165–183.Google Scholar

Nickles, T. 2003. “Normal Science: From Logic to Case-Based and Model-Based Reasoning,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 142–177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nobel. 1977. “Philip W. Anderson: Biographical,” The Nobel Prize. www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1977/anderson/biographical/ (accessed April 1, 2020).Google Scholar

Nola, R. 2000. “Saving Kuhn from the Sociologists of Science,” Science & Education, 9, 77–90.Google Scholar

NSF. 1989. “History and Philosophy of Science & Technology – Panel Summary,” in the TSK Archives. Box 20: Folder 13, NSF (2 of 2).Google Scholar

Nye, M. J. 2011. Michael Polanyi and His Generation: Origins of the Social Construction of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nye, M. J. 2019. “Shifting Trends in Modern Physics, Nobel Recognition, and the Histories that We Write,” Physics in Perspective 21, 3–22.Google Scholar

Oberheim, Eric. 2005. “On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend’s Assault on Epistemic Conservativism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36:2, 363–390.Google Scholar

Oberheim, E. and Hoyningen-Huene, P.. 2018. “The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories,” in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/incommensurability/ (accessed February 11, 2021).Google Scholar

Oppenheim, Paul and Putnam, Hilary. 1958. “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis,” in Feigl, Herbert, Scriven, Michael and Maxwell, Grover (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, pp. 3–36. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Papineau, D. 1974. “Review of the Structure of Scientific Inference by Mary Hesse,” Cambridge Review, May 1974, 167–168.Google Scholar

Patton, L. 2018. “Kuhn, Pedagogy, and Practice: A Local Reading of Structure,” in Mizrahi, M. (ed.), The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation?, pp. 113–130. London: Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.Google Scholar

Pinch, T. J. 1979. “Paradigm Lost? A Review Symposium,” Isis 70:253, 437–440.Google Scholar

Pinto de Oliveira, J. C. 2017. “Thomas Kuhn, the Image of Science and the Image of Art: The First Manuscript of Structure,” Perspectives on Science 25:6, 746–765.Google Scholar

Pitt, J. C. 2001. “The Dilemma of Case Studies: Toward a Heraclitian Philosophy of Science,” Perspectives on Science 9:4, 373–382.Google Scholar

Planck, Max. 1909/1992. “The Unity in the Physical World Picture,” in Blackmore, J. (ed.), Ernst Mach – A Deeper Look: Documents and New Perspectives, pp. 141–146. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Poincaré, H. 1903/2001. “Science and Hypotheses,” in S.J. Gould (ed.), The Value of Science: Essential Writings of Henri Poincaré. New York, NY: The Modern Library.Google Scholar

Polanyi, Michael. 1962. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Politi, V. 2018. “Scientific Revolutions, Specialization and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA: Toward a New Picture of the Development of the Sciences,” Synthese 195: 2267–2293.Google Scholar

Polsby, N. W. 1998. “Social Science and Scientific Change: A Note on T. S. Kuhn’s Contribution,” Annual Review of Political Science 1, 199–210.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. 1935/1992. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1944. “The Poverty of Historicism, I,” Economica, 11:42 (May 1944), 86–103.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. 1956/1963. “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge,” in Popper, Karl R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, pp. 130–160. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1957/1991. The Poverty of Historicism. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. 1963. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations,” in Popper, Karl R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, pp. 43–86. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1970/1972. “Normal Science and Its Dangers,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. IV, reprinted with corrections, pp. 51–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. 1974. “Replies to My Critics,” in Paul A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, 2 vols., pp. 961–1197. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. 1974/1992. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Popper, K. R. 1975/1981. “The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions,” in Hacking, I. (ed.), Scientific Revolutions, pp. 80–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Popper, K. 1978. “Natural Selection the Emergence of Mind,” Dialectica, 32:3–4, 339–355.Google Scholar

Portin, P. 2015. “The Development of Genetics in the Light of Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Revolutions,” Recent Advances in DNA and Gene Sequences 9, 14–25.Google Scholar

Post, H. R. 1971. “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: In Praise of Conservative Heuristics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2:3, 213–255.Google Scholar

Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary. 1978. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. Boston, London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Pyle, Andrew. 2000. “The Rationality of the Chemical Revolution,” in Nola, Robert and Sankey, Howard (eds.), After Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend, pp. 99–124. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. 1951. “Two Dogmas of Empiricism,” The Philosophical Review 60:1, 20–43.Google Scholar

Quine, W. v. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Reichenbach, H. 1938/2006. Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar

Reingold, N. 1980. “Through Paradigm-Land to a Normal History of Science,” Social Studies of Science 10:4, 475–496.Google Scholar

Reisch, G. 1991. “Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?,” Philosophy of Science 58:2, 264–277.Google Scholar

Reisch, George A. 2005. How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Reisch, G. A. 2016. “Aristotle in the Cold War: On the Origins of Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” in Richards, R. J. and Aston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic, pp. 12–29. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Reisch, George A. 2019. The Politics of Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn, James B. Conant, and the Cold War “Struggle for Men’s Minds.” Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar

Renzi, B. G. 2009. “Kuhn’s Evolutionary Epistemology and Its Being Undermined by Inadequate Biological Concepts,” Philosophy of Science 76:2, 143–159.Google Scholar

Reydon, T. A. C., and Hoyningen-Huene, P.. 2010. “Discussion: Kuhn’s Evolutionary Analogy in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and ‘The Road since Structure,” Philosophy of Science 77:3, 468–476.Google Scholar

Reynolds, A. 1999. “What Is Historicism?,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13:3, 275–287.Google Scholar

Richards, Robert J., and Daston, Lorraine (eds). 2016. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Richardson, A. 2007. “‘That Sort of Everyday Image of Logical Positivism’: Thomas Kuhn and the Decline of Logical Empiricist Philosophy of Science,” in Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, pp. 346–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Richardson, A., and Uebel, T.. 2007. “Introduction,” in Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, pp. 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Ritzer, G. 1981. “Paradigm Analysis in Sociology: Clarifying the Issues,” American Sociological Review 46:2, 245–248.Google Scholar

RLE Undercurrents. 1997. “A Last, Loving Look at an MIT Landmark – Building 20,” RLE Undercurrents, 9:2. www.rle.mit.edu/media/undercurrents/Vol9_2_Spring97.pdf (accessed May 24, 2021).Google Scholar

Rossiter, M. 1984. “The History and Philosophy of Science Program at the National Science Foundation,” Isis 75:1, 95–104.Google Scholar

Rowbottom, Darrell P. 2019. The Instrument of Science: Scientific Anti-realism Revitalized. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar

Rueger, A. 1996. “Risk and Diversification in Theory Choice,” Synthese 109:2, 263–280.Google Scholar

Sankey, H. 2018a. “The Demise of the Incommensurability Thesis,” in Mizrahi, M. (ed.), The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation?, pp. 75–91. London: Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.Google Scholar

Sankey, Howard. 2018b. “Kuhn, Relativism and Realism,” in Saatsi, Juha (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, pp. 72–83. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Sauer, T., and Scholl, R. (eds.). 2016. The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, Vol. 319. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Scerri, Eric R. and Lee, McIntyre. 1997. “The Case for the Philosophy of Chemistry,” Synthese 111, 213–232.Google Scholar

Scheffler, Israel. 1967. Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.Google Scholar

Schindler, S. 2018. Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality Through Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Schlick, M. 1930–1931/1959. “The Turning Point in Philosophy,” in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 53–59. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Schlick, Moritz. 1932–1933/1959. “Positivism and Realism,” in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 82–107. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Scholl, R. 2018. “Scenes from a Marriage: On the Confrontation Model of History and Philosophy of Science,” Journal of the Philosophy of History 12:2, 212–238.Google Scholar

Schummer, Joachim. 2006. “The Philosophy of Chemistry: From Infancy Toward Maturity,” in Baird, Davis, Scerri, Eric and McIntyre, Lee (eds.), Philosophy of Chemistry: Synthesis of a New Discipline, pp. 19–39. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Schuster, J. A. 2018. “The Pitfalls and Possibilities of Following Koyré: The Younger Tom Kuhn, ‘Critical Historian,’ on Tradition Dynamics and Big History,” in Pisano, R., Agassi, J. and Drozdova, D. (eds.), Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science: Homage to Alexandre Koyré 1892–1964, pp. 391–420. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Science. 1883. “National Traits in Science,” Science 2:35 (October 5, 1883), 455–457.Google Scholar

Sent, E.-M. 2004. “Behavioral Economics: How Psychology Made Its (Limited) Way Back into Economics,” History of Political Economy 36:4, 735–760.Google Scholar

Sewell, W. H., Jr. 2005. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Shapere, D. 1964. “Review of Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Philosophical Review 73:3, 383–394.Google Scholar

Shapere, D. 1971. “Review: The Paradigm Concept,” Science 172:3984 (May 14, 1971) 706–709.Google Scholar

Shapin, S. 1996. The Scientific Revolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Shapin, Steven, and Schaffer, Simon. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Sharer, R. J., and Ashmore, W.. 2003. Archaeology: Discovering Our Past, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar

Shearmur, J. 2017. “Popper’s Influence on the Social Sciences,” in McIntyre, L. and Rosenberg, A. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science, pp. 55–64. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Shimony, A. 1979. “Paradigm Lost? A Review Symposium,” Isis 70:253, 434–437.Google Scholar

Shirley, John W. 1951. “The Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science: The Evolution of an Idea,” American Journal of Physics 19, 419–423.Google Scholar

Smart, J. J. C. 1963. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Staley, Richard. 2013. “Trajectories in the History and Historiography of Physics in the Twentieth Century,” History of Science 51:2, 151–177.Google Scholar

Stanford, P. K. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Stephens, J. 1973. “The Kuhnian Paradigm and Political Inquiry: An Appraisal,” American Journal of Political Science 17:3, 467–488.Google Scholar

Stigler, G. 1963. “Letter to Thomas Kuhn – Dated 14 March 1963,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 15, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Correspondence S. Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar

Strong, E. 1992. “Philosopher, Professor, and Berkeley Chancellor: Edward W. Strong. Interviews Conducted by Harriet Nathan in 1988.” Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California. http://texts.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt2p30025k&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text (accessed July 30, 2020).Google Scholar

Tang, S. 2011. “Foundational Paradigms of Social Sciences,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41:2, 211–249.Google Scholar

Thackray, Arnold, and Merton, Robert K.. 1972. “On Discipline Building: The Paradoxes of George Sarton,” Isis 63:4, 472–495.Google Scholar

Thagard, Paul. 1990. “The Conceptual Structure of the Chemical Revolution,” Philosophy of Science, 57: 183–209.Google Scholar

Thorne, J. P. 1965. “Review of Paul Postal’s Constituent Structure: A Study of Contemporary Models of Syntactic Description,” Journal of Linguistics 1:1, 73–76.Google Scholar

Timmins, Adam. 2013. “Why Was Kuhn’s Structure More Successful than Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge,” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 3: 306–317.Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen. 1970/1972. “Does the Distinction Between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. IV, reprinted with corrections, eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, pp. 39–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen. 1972. Human Understanding, Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Trenn, Thaddeus. J. 1979. “Preface,” in Fleck, L. (ed.), Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, translated by Bradley, Fred and Trenn, Thaddeus J., pp. xiii–xix. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Truman, D. B. 1965. “Disillusion and Regeneration: The Quest for a Discipline,” American Political Science Review 59:4, 865–873.Google Scholar

Tsou, J. Y. 2015. “Reconsidering the Carnap-Kuhn Connection,” in Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 51–69. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

van Fraassen, Bas C. 1980. The Scientific Image. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

van Fraassen, B. C. 1989. Laws and Symmetry. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Vickers, Peter. 2018. “Historical Challenges to Realism,” in Saatsi, Juha (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, pp. 48–59. London: Routledge,Google Scholar

Walker, T. C. 2010. “The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper,” Perspectives on Politics 8:2, 433–451.Google Scholar

Watkins, J. 1970. “Against ‘Normal Science,’” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, 1965, Volume 4, pp. 25–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Weingart, S. 2015. “Finding the History and Philosophy of Science,” Erkenntnis 80: 201–213.Google Scholar

White, H. 1963. “Review of Quantification: A History of the Meaning of Measurement in the Natural and Social Sciences, by Harry Woolf,” American Journal of Sociology 69:1, 84–85.Google Scholar

Whitesides, George M. 2013. “Is the Focus on ‘Molecules’ Obsolete?” Annual Review of Analytic Chemistry 6: 1–29.Google Scholar

Wilkins, A. S. 1996. “Are There ‘Kuhnian’ Revolutions in Biology?” BioEssays 18:9, 695–696.Google Scholar

Worrall, John. 1989. “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 43:1–2, 99–124.Google Scholar

Worrall, John. 2002. “Normal Science and Dogmatism, Paradigms and Progress: Kuhn ‘versus’ Popper and Lakatos,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 65–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wray, K. B. 2002. “Social Selection, Agents’ Intentions, and Functional Explanation,” Analyse & Kritik 24: 72–86.Google Scholar

Wray, K. B. 2003. “Is Science Really a Young Man’s Game?” Social Studies of Science 33:1, 137–149.Google Scholar

Wray, K. B. 2010. “Philosophy of Science: What Are the Key Journals in the Field?” Erkenntnis, 72: 423–430.Google Scholar

Wray, K. B. 2011. Kuhn’s Evolutionary Social Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wray, K. Brad. 2015a. “Pessimistic Inductions: Four Varieties,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29:1, 61–73.Google Scholar

Wray, K. Brad. 2015b. “The Methodological Defense of Realism Scrutinized,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 54, 74–79.Google Scholar

Wray, K. Brad. 2015c. “Kuhn’s Social Epistemology and the Sociology of Science,” in Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 167–183. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Wray, K. Brad. 2016. “The Influence of James B. Conant on Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 6:1, 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/685542Google Scholar

Wray, K. B. 2017. “Kuhn’s Influence on the Social Sciences,” in McIntyre, L. and Rosenberg, A. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Social Science, pp. 65–75. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Wray, K. Brad. 2018a. Resisting Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Wray, K. Brad. 2018b. “Thomas Kuhn and the T. S. Kuhn Archives at MIT,” OUPblog, May 7, 2018. https://blog.oup.com/2018/05/thomas-kuhn-archives-mit/ (accessed June 5, 2021).Google Scholar

Wray, K. B. 2019. “Discarded Theories: The Role of Changing Interests,” Synthese 196, 553–569.Google Scholar

Wray, K. B. 2020. “Paradigms in Structure: Finally, a Count,”Scientometrics 125, 823–828.Google Scholar

Zammito, J. H. 2004. A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-Positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Zuckerman, H. 1977/1996. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 12, NSF Research Reports.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 12, NSF Research Reports.Google Scholar