Abbott, Andrew (2001). The Chaos of Disciplines. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Abbott, Andrew (2016). “Structure as Cited, Structure as Read.” In Richards, Robert J. and Daston, Lorraine (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic, pp. 167–181. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Abramo, G., D’Angelo, C. A., and Di Costa, F. (2012). “Identifying Interdisciplinarity through the Disciplinary Classification of Coauthors of Scientific Publications.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 63, 11: 2206–2222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adler, K. (2013). “The History of Science as Oxymoron: From Scientific Exceptionalism to Episcience.” Isis 104, 1: 88–101.Google Scholar

Andersen, Hanne (2000). “Learning by Ostension: Thomas Kuhn on Science Education.” Science and Education 9: 91–106.Google Scholar

Andersen, Hanne (2001a). “Critical Notice: Kuhn, Conant and Everything – A Full or Fuller Account.” Philosophy of Science 68, 2: 258–262.Google Scholar

Andersen, Hanne (2001b). On Kuhn. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson.Google Scholar

Andersen, Hanne (2010). “Joint Acceptance and Scientific Change: A Case Study.” Episteme 7, 3: 248–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Hanne (2013). “The Second Essential Tension: On Tradition and Innovation in Interdisciplinary Research.” Topoi 32, 1: 3–8.Google Scholar

Andersen, Hanne (2014). “Co-Author Responsibility: Distinguishing between the Moral and Epistemic Aspects of Trust.” EMBO Reports 15: 915–918.Google Scholar

Andersen, Hanne, Barker, Peter, and Chen, Xiang (2006). The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Andersen, Line E. (2017). “Outsiders Enabling Scientific Change: Learning from the Sociohistory of a Mathematical Proof.” Social Epistemology 31, 2: 184–191.Google Scholar

Arabatzis, T. (2006). “On the Inextricability of the Context of Discovery and the Context of Justification.” In Schickore, J. and Steinle, F. (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification, pp. 215–230. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Barber, Bernard (1963). “Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” American Sociological Review 28, 2: 298–299.Google Scholar

Barnes, S. Barry (1974). Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Barnes, S. Barry (1977). Interests and the Growth of Knowledge. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Barnes, S. Barry (1982a). T. S. Kuhn and Social Science. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Barnes, S. Barry (1982b). “On the Implications of a Body of Knowledge.” Science Communication 4, 1: 95–110.Google Scholar

Barnes, S. Barry (2011). “Relativism as a Completion of the Scientific Project.” In Schantz, R. and Seidel, M. (eds.), The Problem of Relativism in the Sociology of (Scientific) Knowledge, pp. 23–39. Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar

Barnes, S. Barry, and Bloor, David (1982). “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge.” In Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, pp. 21–47. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Barnes, S. Barry, Bloor, David, and Henry, J. (1996). Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Barnes, S. Barry, and Dolby, R. G. A. (1970). “The Scientific Ethos: A Deviant Viewpoint.” European Journal of Sociology 11, 1: 3–25.Google Scholar

Bell, Randy, Abd-El-Khalick, Fouad, Lederman, Normal G., McComas, William F., and Matthews, Michael R. (2001). “The Nature of Science and Science Education: A Bibliography.” Science and Education 10: 187–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bellos, David (2012). Is That a Fish in Your Ear? Translation and the Meaning of Everything. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar

Ben-David, J. (1978). “Emergence of National Traditions in the Sociology of Science.” Sociological Inquiry 48, 3–4: 197–218.Google Scholar

Bernal, John Desmond (1939). The Social Function of Science. London: George Routledge and Sons.Google Scholar

Bhopal, Raj. (1999). “Paradigms in Epidemiology Textbooks: In the Footsteps of Thomas Kuhn.” American Journal of Public Health 89, 8: 1162–1165.Google Scholar

Biagioli, Mario (1990). “Galileo’s System of Patronage.” History of Science 28, 1: 1–62.Google Scholar

Biagioli, Mario (1993). Galileo, Courtier: The Practice of Science in the Culture of Absolutism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Biagioli, Mario (2012). “Productive Illusions: Kuhn’s Structure as a Recruitment Tool.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 42, 5: 479–484.Google Scholar

Bierman, Paul. (2006) “Reconsidering the Textbook.” Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College. Last revised 2006. Accessed November 1, 2022. http://serc.carleton.edu/files/textbook.Google Scholar

Binns, Ian C. (2013) “A Qualitative Method to Determine How Textbooks Portray Scientific Methodology.” In Khine, Myint Swe (ed.), Critical Analysis of Science Textbooks: Evaluating Instructional Effectiveness, pp. 239–258. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (2000a). Thomas Kuhn. Chesham: Acumen.Google Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (2000b). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (2002). “Kuhn’s Wrong Turning.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 33, 3: 443–463.Google Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (2004). “Kuhn, Naturalism, and the Positivist Legacy.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 35, 2: 337–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (2010). “Social Knowing: The Social Sense of ‘Scientific Knowledge.’” Philosophical Perspectives 24: 23–56.Google Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (2012a). “Kuhn, Naturalism, and the Social Study of Science.” In Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 205–230. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (2012b). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Its Significance: An Essay Review of the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.” British Journal of the Philosophy of Science 63: 859–883.Google Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (2014). “When Is There a Group That Knows? Distributed Cognition, Scientific Knowledge, and the Social Epistemic Subject.” In Lackey, Jennifer (ed.), Essays in Collective Epistemology, pp. 42–63. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bird, Alexander J. (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. 23–28. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Birge, Raymond Thayer (1929). “Probable Values of the General Physical Constants.” Reviews of Modern Physics 1, 1: 1–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Birge, Raymond Thayer (1932). “The Calculation of Errors by the Method of Least Squares” Physical Review 40: 207–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Birge, Raymond Thayer (1941). “The General Physical Constants: As of August 1941 with Details on the Velocity of Light Only.” Reports on Progress in Physics 8, 1: 90–134.Google Scholar

Birge, Raymond Thayer (1943). “Comments on ‘The Probable Accuracy of the General Physical Constants.’” Physical Review 63, 5–6: 213.Google Scholar

Birge, Raymond Thayer (1957). “A Survey of the Systematic Evaluation of the Universal Physical Constants.” Il Nuovo Cimento 6, S1: 39–67.Google Scholar

Bloom, Harold (1973). The Anxiety of Influence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Bloor, David (1973). “Wittgenstein and Mannheim on the Sociology of Mathematics.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4, 2: 173–191.Google Scholar

Bloor, David (1976/1991). Knowledge and Social Imagery. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Bloor, David (1983a). “Relativism (methodological).” In Bynum, W. F. et al. (eds.), Macmillan Dictionary of the History of Science, p. 369. London: Macmillan Press.Google Scholar

Bloor, David (1983b). Wittgenstein: A Sociological Theory of Knowledge. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bloor, David (1984). “The Sociology of Reasons: Or Why ‘Epistemic Factors’ Are Really ‘Social Factors.’” In Brown, J. R. (ed.), Scientific Rationality: The Sociological Turn, pp. 295–324. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Bloor, David (2004). “Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” In Niiniluoto, I. et al. (eds.), Handbook of Epistemology, pp. 919–962. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

Bloor, David (2007). “Epistemic Grace: Antirelativism as Theology in Disguise.” Common Knowledge 13, 2–3: 250–280.Google Scholar

Bloor, David (2011). “Relativism and the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” In Hales, D. (ed.), A Companion to Relativism, pp. 433–455. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Bloor, David (2017). Interview with David Bloor, by R. McKenna, A.-K. Koch, and N. Ashton. https://emergenceofrelativism.weebly.com/blog/interview-with-david-bloor.Google Scholar

Boas Hall, M. (1963). “Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” The American Historical Review 68, 3: 700–701.Google Scholar

Bodenmann, S. (2010). “The 18th-Century Battle over Lunar Motion.” Physics Today 63, 1: 27–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bohm, D. (1964). “Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” The Philosophical Review 14, 57: 377–379.Google Scholar

Bokulich, Alisa (2020a). “Towards a Taxonomy of the Model-Ladenness of Data.” Philosophy of Science 87, 5: 793–806.Google Scholar

Bokulich, Alisa (2020b). “Calibration, Coherence, and Consilience in Radiometric Measures of Geologic Time.” Philosophy of Science 87, 3: 425–456.Google Scholar

Bokulich, Alisa, and Parker, William (2021). “Data Models, Representation and Adequacy-for-Purpose.” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 11, 1: 31.Google Scholar

Boyd, Richard (1979). “Metaphor and Theory Change: What Is ‘Metaphor’ a Metaphor For?” In Ortony, Andrew (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 481–532. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Bratman, M. E. (1992). “Shared Cooperative Activity.” Philosophical Review 101, 2: 327–341.Google Scholar

Briatte, F. (2007) “Entretien avec David Bloor.” Tracés: Revue de Sciences Humaine 12: 215–228.Google Scholar

Brown, Matthew J., and Kidd, Ian James (2016). “Introduction: Reappraising Paul Feyerabend.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 1–8.Google Scholar

Brush, Stephen G. (1974). “Should the History of Science Be Rated X?” Science 183, 4230 (March 22): 1164–1172.Google Scholar

Brush, Stephen G. (2000). “Thomas Kuhn as a Historian of Science.” Science and Education 9: 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Buchwald, Jed Z., and Smith, George E. (1997). “Thomas S. Kuhn, 1922–1996.” Philosophy of Science 64, 2: 361–376.Google Scholar

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

Bush, Vannevar (1945). Science: The Endless Frontier: A Report to the President. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.Google Scholar

Caneva, Kenneth L. (2000). “Possible Kuhns in the History of Science: Anomalies of Incommensurable Paradigms.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 31, 1: 87–124.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf (1932/1987). “On Protocol Sentences,” trans. Richard Creath and Richard Nollan. Nous 21: 457–470.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf (1934/1937). The Logical Syntax of Language, trans. Amethe Smeaton. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf (1935). Philosophy and Logical Syntax. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf (1936). “Testability and Meaning.” Philosophy of Science 3, 4: 419–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf (1937). “Testability and Meaning – Continued.” Philosophy of Science 4, 1: 1–40.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf (1956). “The Methodological Character of Theoretical Concepts.” In Feigl, Herbert and Scriven, Michael (eds.), The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis, pp. 38–78. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Carnap, Rudolf (1966). Philosophical Foundations of Physics: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science, ed. Gardner, Martin. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Carrier, M. (2008). “The Aim and Structure of Methodological Theory.” In Soler, L. et al. (eds.), Rethinking Scientific Change and Theory Comparison: Stabilities, Ruptures, Incommensurabilities?, pp. 273–290. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Cartwright, Nancy (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Cartwright, Nancy (1999). The Dappled World: A Study of the Boundaries of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Cat, Jordi (2022). “The Unity of Science.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2022 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/scientific-unity.Google Scholar

Cavell, Stanley (2010). Little Did I Know: Excerpts from Memory. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

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

Chang, Hasok (2004). Inventing Temperature: Measurement and Scientific Progress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Chang, Hasok (2012a). Is Water H₂O? Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Chang, Hasok (2012b). “Incommensurability: Revisiting the Chemical Revolution.” In Kindi, Vasso and Arabatzis, Theodore (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 153–176. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Chu, J. S., and Evans, J. A. (2021). “Slowed Canonical Progress in Large Fields of Science.” PNAS 118, 41: e2021636118.Google Scholar

Cohen, E. Richard, Crowe, Kenneth M., and DuMond, Jesse W. (1957). The Fundamental Constants of Physics, vol. 1. New York: Interscience Publishers.Google Scholar

Cohen, E. Richard, and DuMond, Jesse W. (1957). “The Fundamental Constants of Atomic Physics.” In Richard Cohen, E., Crowe, Kenneth M., and DuMond, Jesse W. M. (eds.), Atoms I/Atome I, pp. 1–87. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar

Cohen, E. Richard, and DuMond, Jesse W. (1965). “Our Knowledge of the Fundamental Constants of Physics and Chemistry in 1965.” Reviews of Modern Physics 37, 4: 537–594.Google Scholar

Cohen, I. B. (1980). The Newtonian Revolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Collin, F. (2011). Science Studies as Naturalized Philosophy. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Collins, Harry (2011). “Language and Practice.” Social Studies of Science 41: 271–300.Google Scholar

Collins, Harry (2012). “Comment on Kuhn.” Social Studies of Science 43, 3: 420–423.Google Scholar

Collins, Harry (2018). “Studies of Expertise and Experience.” Topoi 37, 1: 67–77.Google Scholar

Collins, Harry, and Evans, Robert (2017). Why Democracies Need Science. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Collins, Harry, Evans, Robert, Durant, Darrin, and Weinel, Martin (2020). “How Does Science Fit into Society? The Fractal Model.” In Experts and the Will of the People, pp. 63–88. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Collins, Harry, Evans, Robert, and Gorman, Mike (2007). “Trading Zones and Interactional Expertise.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38: 657–666.Google Scholar

Comte, Auguste (1988). Introduction to Positive Philosophy. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar

Conant, James B. (1947/1952). On Understanding Science. Mentor edition. 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). “Science and Politics in the Twentieth Century.” Foreign Affairs 28, 2: 189–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Conant, James B. (1951). “The Impact of Science on Industry and Medicine.” American Scientist 39, 1: 33–49.Google Scholar

Conant, James B., and Nash, Leonard K. (eds.) (1948/1957). Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Cowan, Tyler (2013). “A Profession with an Egalitarian Core.” New York Times, Section BU (March 17): 4.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard (1990). “Introduction.” In W. V. Quine and Rudolf Carnap, Dear Carnap, Dear Van: The Quine-Carnap Correspondence and Related Work, ed. Creath, Richard, pp. 1–43. Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard (2004). “Quine on the Intelligibility and Relevance of Analyticity.” In Gibson, Roger (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Quine, pp. 47–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Creath, Richard (2007). “Quine’s Challenge to Carnap.” In Friedman, Michael and Creath, Richard (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Carnap, pp. 316–335. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Csiszar, A. (2018). The Scientific Journal: Authorship and the Politics of Knowledge in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Cushing, James T. (1994). Quantum Mechanics: Historical Contingency and the Copenhagen Hegemony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

D’Agostino, F. (2010). Naturalizing Epistemology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Daston, Lorraine (1994). “Historical Epistemology.” In Chandler, James, Davidson, Arnold I., and Harootunian, Harry (eds.), Questions of Evidence: Proof, Practice, and Persuasion across the Disciplines, pp. 282–289. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Daston, Lorraine (2009). “Science Studies and the History of Science.” Critical Inquiry 35: 798–813.Google Scholar

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

Daston, Lorraine, and Galison, Peter (2007). Objectivity. New York: Zone Books.Google Scholar

Davidson, Arnold I. (2001). The Emergence of Sexuality: Historical Epistemology and the Formation of Concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald (1974/1984). “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Science.” In Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, pp. 183–198. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar

Davidson, Donald (1997). “Gadamer and Plato’s Philebus.” In Hahn, L. E. (ed.), The Philosophy of Hans-Georg Gadamer. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Dear, Peter (ed.) (1991). The Literary Structure of Scientific Argument. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar

Dear, Peter (1995). “Cultural History of Science: An Overview with Reflections.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 20, 2: 150–170.Google Scholar

Dear, Peter (2012). “Fifty Years of Structure.” Social Studies of Science 43, 3: 424–428.Google Scholar

Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A., Zollo, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., and Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). “Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook.” Scientific Reports 6, 1: 1–12.Google Scholar

Dewey, John (1916). Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar

Dimopoulos, Kostos, and Karamanidou, Christina (2013). “Towards a More Epistemologically Valid Image of School Science: Revealing the Textuality of School Science Textbooks.” In Khine, Myint Swe (ed.), Critical Analysis of Science Textbooks: Evaluating Instructional Effectiveness, pp. 61–78. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Donner, Wendy (1998). “Mill’s Utilitarianism.” In Skorupski, John (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Mill, pp. 255–292. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Duhem, Pierre (1914/1954). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory, 2nd ed., trans. Marcel Rivière. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Dupré, John (1993). The Disorder of Things: Metaphysical Foundations of the Disunity of Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Earman, John (1993). “Carnap, Kuhn, and the Philosophy of Scientific Methodology.” In Horwich, Paul (ed.), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, pp. 9–36. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Edgerton, D. (2004). “The Linear Model Did Not Exist: Reflections on the History and Historiography of Science and Research in Industry in the Twentieth Century.” In Grandin, K., Wormbs, N., and Widmalm, S. (eds.), The Science-Industry Nexus. History, Policy, Implications. New York: Science History Publications, pp. 31–57.Google Scholar

Fagan, Melinda Bonnie (2011). “Is There Collective Scientific Knowledge? Arguments from Explanation.” The Philosophical Quarterly 61, 243: 247–269.Google Scholar

Fagan, Melinda Bonnie (2012a). “The Joint Account of Mechanistic Explanation.” Philosophy of Science 79, 4: 448–472.Google Scholar

Fagan, Melinda Bonnie (2012b). “Collective Scientific Knowledge.” Philosophy Compass 7, 12: 821–831.Google Scholar

Fan, F. (2012). “The Global Turn in the History of Science.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 6: 249–258.Google Scholar

Feest, Uljana, and Sturm, Thomas (2011). “What (Good) Is Historical Epistemology? Editors’ Introduction.” Erkenntnis 75, 3: 285–302.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. (1970). “Consolations for the Specialist.” In Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 197–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. (1975). Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge. London: New Left Books.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. (1978a). Science in a Free Society. London: New-Left Books.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. (1978b). Science in a Free Society. London: Verso Books.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. (1987). Farewell to Reason. London: Verso.Google Scholar

Feyerabend, Paul K. (1989). “Realism and the Historicity of Knowledge.” Journal of Philosophy 86, 8: 393–406.Google Scholar

Fiske, Edward B. (1987). “Colleges Prodded to Prove Worth.” New York Times, Section 1 (January 18): 1.Google Scholar

Fleck, Ludwik (1935/1979). Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, trans. Fred Bradley and Thaddeus J. Trenn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael (1987). “Carnap’s Aufbau Reconsidered.” Nous 21: 521–545.Google Scholar

Friedman, Michael (2001). Dynamics of Reason: The 1999 Kant Lectures at Stanford University. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar

Fuller, Steve (2000a). “From Conant’s Education Strategy to Kuhn’s Research Strategy.” Science and Education 9: 21–37.Google Scholar

Fuller, Steve (2000b). Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Fuller, Steve (2003). Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science. Duxford: Icon.Google Scholar

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

Galison, Peter (1987). How Experiments End. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Galison, Peter (1988). “History, Philosophy, and the Central Metaphor.” Science in Context 2: 197–212.Google Scholar

Galison, Peter (1997). Image and Logic. A Material Culture of Microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Galison, Peter (1999). “Trading Zone: Coordinating Action and Belief.” In Biagioli, M. (ed.), The Science Studies Reader, pp. 137–160. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Galison, Peter (2008). “Ten Problems for History and Philosophy of Science.” Isis 99, 1: 111–114.Google Scholar

Galison, Peter (2011). “Scientific Cultures.” In Alexander, J. C., Smith, P., and Norton, M. (eds.), Interpreting Clifford Geertz: Cultural Investigation in the Social Sciences. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

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

Galison, Peter, and Stump, David J. (eds.) (1996). The Disunity of Science: Boundaries, Contexts, and Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar

Garber, Daniel (2009). “Galileo, Newton and All That: If It Wasn’t a Revolution What Was It?” Circumscribere 7: 9–18.Google Scholar

Geertz, C. (1997/2000). “The Legacy of Thomas Kuhn: The Right Text at the Right Time.” In Available Light, pp. 160–166. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Giere, Ronald 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, Ronald N. (1999). Science without Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Margaret (1987). “Modelling Collective Belief.” Synthese 73, 1: 185–204.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Margaret (1990). “Walking Together: A Paradigmatic Social Phenomenon.” Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15: 1–14.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Margaret (1992). On Social Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Gilbert, Margaret (2000). “Collective Belief and Scientific Change.” In Sociality and Responsibility: New Essays in Plural Subject Theory, pp. 37–49. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Gillispie, C. C. (1962). “The Nature of Science.” Science 138, 3546 (December 14): 1251–1253.Google Scholar

Giri, Leandro, and Melongo, Pablo (2023). “Towards a Genealogy of Thomas Kuhn’s Semantics.” Perspectives on Science 31: 385–404.Google Scholar

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

Golinski, J. (2012). “Thomas Kuhn and Interdisciplinary Conversation: Why Historians and Philosophers of Science Stopped Talking to One Another.” In Mauskopf, S. and Schmaltz, T. (eds.), Integrating History and Philosophy of Science, pp. 13–28. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Goodwin, W. (2021). “Mop-Up Work.” In Brad Wray, K. (ed.), Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays, pp. 85–104. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Gordin, M. D. (2020). “When National Styles Were Stylish.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 50, 1–2: 11–16.Google Scholar

Graham, G. (1997). The Shape of the Past: A Philosophical Approach to History. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Grégis, Fabien (2019a). “Assessing Accuracy in Measurement: The Dilemma of Safety versus Precision in the Adjustment of the Fundamental Physical Constants.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 74: 42–55.Google Scholar

Grégis, Fabien (2019b). “On the Meaning of Measurement Uncertainty.” Measurement 133, 41–46.Google Scholar

Grendler, P. F. (2002). The Universities of the Italian Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar

Guarnieri, M. (2010). “The Early History of Radar.” IEEE Industrial Electronics Magazine 4, 3: 36–42.Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian (1975). The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas about Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian (1982). “Experimentation and Scientific Realism.” Philosophical Topics 13, 1: 71–87.Google Scholar

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

Hacking, Ian (1992). “‘Style’ for Historians and Philosophers.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 23, 1: 1–20.Google Scholar

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

Hacking, Ian (2002). Historical Ontology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian (2012). “Introductory Essay.” In Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition, pp. vii–xxxvii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian (2015). “Let’s Not Talk about Objectivity.” In Flavia, Padovani, Richardson, Alan, and Tsou, Jonathan Y. (eds.), Objectivity in Science: New Perspectives from Science and Technology Studies, pp. 19–33. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Hacking, Ian (2016). “Paradigms.” In Richards, R. J. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic, pp. 96–112. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hagstrom, W. O. (1974). “Competition in Science.” American Sociological Review 39, 1: 1–18.Google Scholar

Hakli, R. (2006). “Group Beliefs and the Distinction between Belief and Acceptance.” Cognitive Systems Research 7, 2–3: 286–297.Google Scholar

Handelsman, Jo, Ebert-May, Diane, Beichner, Robert, Bruns, Peter, Chang, Amy, DeHaan, Robert, Gentile, Jim, et al. (2004). “Scientific Teaching.” Science 304, 5670: 521–522. Accessed November 2, 2022. www.jstor.org/stable/3836701.Google Scholar

Hankins, T. L. (1985). Science and the Enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Hannaway, O., Kargon, R., and Davis, A. B. (1983). “Annual Meeting of the History of Science Society, 28–31 October 1982.” Isis 74, 2 (June): 243–248.Google Scholar

Hanson, Norwood Russell (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Haraway, D. (1988). “Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective.” Feminist Studies 14, 3: 575–599.Google Scholar

Hardwig, John (1985). “Epistemic Dependence.” Journal of Philosophy 82, 7: 335–349.Google Scholar

Hardwig, John (1991). “The Role of Trust in Knowledge.” Journal of Philosophy 88, 12: 693–708.Google Scholar

Harman, G. (1986). Change in View: Principles of Reasoning. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Haufe, C. (2024). Fruitfulness. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Heesen, A. te (2020). “Thomas S. Kuhn, Earwitness: Interviewing and the Making of a New History of Science.” Isis 111, 1: 86–97.Google Scholar

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

Helmholz, A. C. (1980). “Raymond Thayer Birge.” Physics Today 33, 8: 68–70.Google Scholar

Hempel, Carl G. (1950). “Problems and Changes in the Empiricist Criterion of Meaning.” Revue Internationale de Philosophie 41, 11: 41–63.Google Scholar

Hempel, Carl G. (1966). Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Henrion, M., and Fischhoff, B. (1986). “Assessing Uncertainty in Physical Constants.” American Journal of Physics, 54, 9: 791–798.Google Scholar

Hershberg, James (1993). James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.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 (1980). “The Hunt for Scientific Reason.” In Asquith, Peter D. and Giere, Ronald N. (eds.), PSA 1980: Proceedings of the 1980 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 2, pp. 3–22. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar

Holbrook, J. B. (2005). “Assessing the Science–Society Relation: The Case of the US National Science Foundation’s Second Merit Review Criterion.” Technology in Society 27, 4: 437–451.Google Scholar

Hollinger, A. D. (1973). “T. S. Kuhn’s Theory of Science and Its Implications for History.” The American Historical Review 78, 2: 370–393.Google Scholar

Hooker, Brad (2015). “Rule Consequentialism,” bibliography. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, accessed November 4, 2022. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism-rule/.Google Scholar

Horwich, Paul (ed.) (1993). World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (1987). “Context of Discovery and Context of Justification.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 18, 4: 501–515.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (1989/1993). Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science, trans. Alex Levine. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (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 (1995). “Two Letters of Paul Feyerabend to Thomas S. Kuhn on a Draft of the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 26, 3: 353–387.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (2006a). “Context of Discovery versus Context of Justification and Thomas Kuhn.” In Schickore, Jutta and Steinle, Friedrich (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, pp. 119–131. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (2006b). “More Letters by Paul Feyerabend to Thomas S. Kuhn on Proto-Structure.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37, 4: 610–632.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (2008). “Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution.” Foundations of Chemistry 10: 101–115.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (2012). “Philosophical Elements in Thomas Kuhn’s Historiography of Science.” Theoria 75: 281–292.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (2015a). “Kuhn’s Development before and after Structure.” In Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 185–195. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (2015b). Systematicity: The Nature of Science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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

Hull, David L. (1989). Science as a Process. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar

Hull, David L. (1996). “A Revolutionary Philosopher of Science.” Nature 382 (July 18): 203–204.Google Scholar

Hwang, R.-C., et al. (2010). “Dropping the Brand of Edinburgh School: An Interview with Barry Barnes.” East Asian Science, Technology and Society: An International Journal 4: 601–617.Google Scholar

Irzik, Gürol, and Grünberg, Teo (1995). “Carnap and Kuhn: Arch Enemies or Close Allies?” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 46: 285–307.Google Scholar

Isaac, J. (2012). “Kuhn’s Education: Wittgenstein, Pedagogy, and the Road to Structure.” Modern Intellectual History 9: 89–107.Google Scholar

Isaac, J. (2013). “Review of Thomas S Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.” Isis 104, 3: 658–659.Google Scholar

James, R. J. (1989). “A History of Radar.” IEE Review 35, 9: 343–349.Google Scholar

Jamieson, Annie, and Radick, Gregory (2017). “Genetic Determinism in the Genetics Curriculum: An Exploratory Study of the Effects of Mendelian and Weldonian Emphases.” Science and Education 26: 1261–1290.Google Scholar

Josephson, P. R. (1985). “Soviet Historians and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Isis 76: 551–559.Google Scholar

Kellert, Stephen H., Longino, Helen E., and Waters, C. Kenneth (2006). “Introduction: The Pluralist Stance.” In Kellert, Stephen H., Longino, Helen E., and Waters, C. Kenneth (eds.), Scientific Pluralism, pp. vii–xxix. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Kelves, D. (1977). “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945.” Isis 68: 5–26.Google Scholar

Khine, Myint Swe (ed.) (2013). Critical Analysis of Science Textbooks: Evaluating Instructional Effectiveness. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Kindi, Vasso (2005a). “Should Science Teaching Involve the History of Science? An Assessment of Kuhn’s View.” Science and Education 14: 721–731.Google Scholar

Kindi, Vasso (2005b). “The Relation of History of Science to Philosophy of Science in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Kuhn’s Later Philosophical Work.” Perspectives on Science 13, 4: 495–530.Google Scholar

Kindi, Vasso (2012a). “Kuhn’s Paradigms.” In Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 91–111. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Kindi, Vasso (2012b). “The Structure’s Legacy: Not from Philosophy to Description.” Topoi 32, 1: 81–89.Google Scholar

Kindi, Vasso (2015). “The Role of Evidence in Judging Kuhn’s Model: On the Mizrahi, Patton, Marcum Exchange.” Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective 4, 11: 25–33. http://wp.me/p1Bfg0-2sQ.Google Scholar

Kindi, Vasso (2017). “The Kuhnian Straw Man.” In Mizrahi, M. (ed.), The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation?, pp. 95–112. London: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar

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

Kitcher, P. (1990). “The Division of Cognitive Labor.” The Journal of Philosophy 87, 1: 5–22.Google Scholar

Klein, U. (2015). “The Revolution That Never Happened.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 49: 80–90.Google Scholar

Klug, Anastasia, Müller, Olaf, Reinacher, Anna, Vine, Troy, and Yürüyen, Derya (eds.) (2021). Goethe, Ritter und die Polarität: Geschichte und Kontroversen. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

Kopec, M., and Miller, S. (2018). “Shared Intention Is Not Joint Commitment.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 13, 2: 179–189.Google Scholar

Kourany, J. (1979). “The Nonhistorical Basis of Kuhn’s Theory of Science.” Nature and System 1: 46–59.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. (1957). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1959). Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 3: Folder 12, Lectures, General, 1957–1959.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1959/1977). “The Essential Tension: Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research.” Reprinted in Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 225–239. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1961/1977). “The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science.” In Kuhn’s, T. S. (ed.), Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 178–224. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Originally published in Isis 52, 2: 161–193.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1961a). Letter from Thomas S. Kuhn to James B. Conant. Berkeley, CA, June 29, 1961. Harvard University Archives.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1961b). Proto-Structure. Unpublished early manuscript of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Thomas S. Kuhn Archives, MIT.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962/1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1962/2012). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed., 50th Anniversary Edition, with an Introductory Essay by Ian Hacking. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1963). “The Function of Dogma in Scientific Research.” In Crombie, A. C. (ed.), Scientific Change: Historical Studies in the Intellectual, Social and Technical Conditions for Scientific Discovery and Technical Invention, from Antiquity to the Present, pp. 347–369. London: Heinemann; New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1964). Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 3: Folder 13, Lectures, General, 1960–1964.Google Scholar

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

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970/2012). “Postscript – 1969.” Kuhn, In T. S. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd–4th ed., pp. 173–208. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970a). “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 1–23. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970b). “Reflections on My Critics.” In Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 231–278. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1971). “Notes on Lakatos.” In Buck, R. C. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), PSA 1970: In Memory of Rudolf Carnap, pp. 137–146. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

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

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1972). “Scientific Growth: Reflection on Ben-David’s Scientific Role.” Minerva 10: 166–178.Google Scholar

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

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1974). “Discussion.” In Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories, pp. 500–517. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

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

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1976). “Mathematical versus Experimental Traditions in the Development of Physical Science.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History 7, 1: 1–31.Google Scholar

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

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1976/1977b). “The Relations between the History and the Philosophy of Science.” In Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 3–20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (ed.) (1977). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

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

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1978). Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1979). “Foreword.” In Ludwik Fleck, T. J. Trenn, and R. K. Merton, trans. F. Bradley and T. J. Trenn, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, pp. vii–xi. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1980). “The Halt and the Blind: Philosophy and History of Science.” British Journal for Philosophy of Science 31: 181–192.Google Scholar

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

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

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1986). “The Histories of Science: Diverse Worlds for Diverse Audiences.” Academe 72, 4: 29–33.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1989/1993). “Foreword.” In Hoyningen-Huene, Paul (ed.), Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science, pp. xi–xiii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1991/2000). “The Road since Structure.” In J. Conant and J. Haugeland (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 90–104. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1992/2000). “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science.” In J. Conant and J. Haugeland (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 105–120. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1993/2000). “Afterwords.” In J. Conant and J. Haugeland (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 224–252. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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, ed. Conant, J. and Haugeland, J., pp. 253–323. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2000). The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, ed. Conant, J. and Haugeland, J.. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2016). “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge: An Interview with Thomas Kuhn (conducted by Skúli Sigurdsson).” In Blum, A. et al. (eds.), Shifting Paradigms. Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science, pp. 17–30. Berlin: Max-Planck-Institute for the History of Science.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2021). The Quest for Physical Theory. Problems in the Methodology of Scientific Research, ed. Reisch, George A.. Boston: MIT Libraries.Google Scholar

Kuhn, Thomas S. (2022). The Last Writings of Thomas S. Kuhn: Incommensurability in Science, edited by Mladenovic, Bojana. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Kusch, Martin (2010). “Hacking’s Historical Epistemology: A Critique of Styles of Reasoning.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 41, 2: 158–173.Google Scholar

Kusch, Martin (2016). “Relativism in Feyerabend’s Later Writings.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 106–113.Google Scholar

Kusch, Martin (2021). Relativism in the Philosophy of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Kuukkanen, Jouni-Matti (2013). “Kuhn’s Legacy: Theoretical and Philosophical Study of History.” Topoi 32: 91–99.Google Scholar

Kuusela, O. (2008). The Struggle against Dogmatism. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Kuusela, O. (2019). Wittgenstein on Logic as the Method of Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lakatos, Imre (1970). “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, vol. 4, pp. 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Lakatos, Imre (1971). “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In Buck, R. C. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970, pp. 91–136. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar

Lakatos, Imre, and Musgrave, Alan (eds.) (1970). Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Latour, B. (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). Laboratory Life: The Social Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Laudan, Larry (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and Their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Levine, Alex (1999). “Scientific Progress and the Fregean Legacy.” Mind and Language 14, 3: 263–290.Google Scholar

Levine, Alex (2000). “Which Way Is Up? Thomas S. Kuhn’s Analogy to Conceptual Development in Childhood.” Science and Education 9: 107–122.Google Scholar

Levine, Alex, and Novoa, Adriana (2012). ¡Darwinistas! The Construction of Evolutionary Thought in Nineteenth Century Argentina, ed. Feingold, Mordechai. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar

List, C., and Pettit, P. (2011). Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lloyd, Elisabeth A. (1996). “The Anachronistic Anarchist.” Philosophical Studies 81, 2–3: 247–261.Google Scholar

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

Loving, Cathleen C., and Cobern, William W. (2000). “Invoking Thomas Kuhn: What Citation Analysis Reveals about Science Education.” Science and Education 9: 187–206.Google Scholar

Luchetti, Michele (2021). “Coordination in Theory Extension: How Reichenbach Can Help Us Understand Endogenization in Evolutionary Biology.” Synthese 1999, 3–4: 9855–9880.Google Scholar

Ludwig, David, and Ruphy, Stéphanie (2021). “Scientific Pluralism.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/scientific-pluralism.Google Scholar

Lynch, M. (2012). “Self-Exemplifying Revolutions? Notes on Kuhn and Latour.” Social Studies of Science 42, 3: 449–455.Google Scholar

Maasen, S., and Weingart, P. (2000). Metaphors and the Dynamics of Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Mach, Ernst (1911). History and Root of the Principle of the Conservation of Energy, trans. P. E. B. Jourdain. Chicago: Open Court.Google Scholar

Magnus, P. D. (2013). “Philosophy of Science in the 21st Century.” Metaphilosophy 44, 1–2: 48–52.Google Scholar

Malpas, Jeff (2021). “Donald Davidson.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition).Google Scholar

Mandelbaum, Maurice (1969). “Two Moot Issues in Mill’s Utilitarianism.” In Schneewind, J. B. (ed.), Mill: A Collection of Critical Essays, pp. 206–233. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar

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

Masterman, Margaret (1970). “The Nature of Paradigms.” 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. 4, pp. 59–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Mathiesen, K. (2006). “The Epistemic Features of Group Belief.” Episteme 2, 3: 161–175.Google Scholar

Matthews, Michael R. (2000). “Editorial.” Science and Education 9: 1–10.Google Scholar

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

Matthews, Michael R. (2022). “Thomas Kuhn and Science Education: A Troubled Connection.” HP&ST Newsletter, April: 6–24.Google Scholar

Mayoral, Juan Vicente (2009). “Intensions, Belief and Science: Kuhn’s Early Philosophical Outlook (1940–1945).” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40, 2: 175–184.Google Scholar

Mayoral, Juan Vicente (2011). “Hacia una reinterpretación de la ciencia normal: Kuhn y la física de su tiempo (1940–1951).” Asclepio 63, 1: 221–248.Google Scholar

Mayoral, Juan Vicente (2017). Thomas S. Kuhn: La búsqueda de La Estructura. Zaragoza: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar

Mayr, E. (1972). “The Nature of the Darwinian Revolution.” Science 176: 981– 989.Google Scholar

McMullin, Ernan (1984). “A Case for Scientific Realism.” In Leplin, J. (ed.), Scientific Realism, pp. 8–40. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar

McMullin, Ernan (1993). “Rationality and Paradigm Change in Science.” In Horwich, Paul (ed.), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, pp. 55–78. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Melogno, Pablo (2022). “From Externalism to Internalism: The Historiographical Development of Thomas Kuhn.” Foundations of Science 27, 2: 371–385.Google Scholar

Mercier, J. (1924). “De la synchronisation harmonique et multiple.” Journal de Physique et le Radium 5: 168–179.Google Scholar

Michelson, A. A. (1927). “Measurement of the Velocity of Light between Mount Wilson and Mount San Antonio.” The Astrophysical Journal 65, 1: 1–14.Google Scholar

Mizrahi, M. (ed.) (2018). The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation? London: Rowman and Littlefield International.Google Scholar

Mladenović, B. (2007). “‘Muckracking in History’: The Role of the History of Science in Kuhn’s Philosophy.” Perspectives on Science 15, 3: 261–294.Google Scholar

Morris, E. (2018). The Ashtray; or, The Man Who Denied Reality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Moss, J. D. (1993). Novelties in the Heavens: Rhetoric and Science in the Copernican Controversy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nash, L. K. (1956). “The Origin of Dalton’s Chemical Atomic Theory.” Isis 47, 2: 101–116.Google Scholar

National Science Board (2007). Enhancing Support of Transformative Research at the National Science Foundation. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar

NGSS Lead States (2013). “Appendix H, Understanding the Scientific Enterprise: The Nature of Science in the Next Generation Science Standards.” In Next Generation Science Standards for States by States, pp. 1–10. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar

Niaz, Mansoor (2001). “A Rational Reconstruction of the Origin of the Covalent Bond and Its Implications for General Chemistry Textbooks.” International Journal of Science Education 23, 6: 623–645.Google Scholar

Niaz, Mansoor (2016). Chemistry Education and Contributions from History and Philosophy of Science. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Niaz, Mansoor, and Coştu, Bayram (2013). “Analysis of Turkish General Chemistry Textbooks Based on a History and Philosophy of Science Perspective.” In Khine, Myint Swe (ed.), Critical Analysis of Science Textbooks: Evaluating Instructional Effectiveness, pp. 199–218. New York: Springer.Google Scholar

Niaz, Mansoor, and Maza, Arelys (2011). Nature of Science in General Chemistry Textbooks. Springer Briefs in Education. Accessed November 6, 2022. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-1920-0_1.Google Scholar

Nickles, Thomas (ed.) (2003a). Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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

Nickles, Thomas (2012). “Some Puzzles about Kuhn’s Exemplars.” In Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 112–133. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Nickles, Thomas (2017). “Historicist Theories of Scientific Rationality.” In Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationality-historicist/.Google Scholar

Nickles, Thomas (2021). “Kuhn on Scientific Discovery as Endogenous.” In Wray, K. Brad (ed.), Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays, pp. 185–201. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Nola, Robert (2000). “Saving Kuhn from the Sociologists of Science.” Science and Education 9, 1: 77–90.Google Scholar

Nola, Robert (2003). Rescuing Reason: A Critique of Anti-Rationalist Views of Science and Knowledge. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar

North, J. (1992). “The Quadrivium.” In H. de Ridder-Symoens (ed.), A History of the University in Europe, vol. 1: Universities in the Middle Ages, pp. 337–359. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Novoa, Adriana, and Levine, Alex (2010). From Man to Ape: Darwinism in Argentina, 1870–1920. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Nye, Mary Jo (2014). “Science and Politics in the Philosophy of Science: Popper, Kuhn, and Polanyi.” In Epple, M. and Zittel, C. (eds.), Science as Cultural Practice, pp. 201–216. Berlin: De Gruyter.Google Scholar

Nye, Mary Jo (2019). “Shifting Trends in Modern Physics, Nobel Recognition, and the Histories That We Write.” Physics in Perspective 21: 3–22.Google Scholar

O’Donohue, William, and Willis, Brendan (2018). “Problematic Images of Science in Undergraduate Psychology Textbooks: How Well Is Science Understood and Depicted?” Archives of Scientific Psychology 6, 1: 51–62. Accessed October 10, 2022. doi:10.1037/arc0000040.Google Scholar

Olby, Robert C. (1966/1985). Origins of Mendelism, 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Olesko, Kathryn M. (2006). “Science Pedagogy as a Category of Historical Analysis: Past, Present, and Future.” Science and Education 15: 863–880.Google Scholar

Oliveira, J.C. de Pinto (2021). “Kuhn and Logical Positivism: On the Image of Science and the Image of Philosophy.” In Wray, K. Brad (ed.), Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays, pp. 65–82. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Oreskes, N., and Conway, E. M. (2010). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change. New York: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar

Pang, A. S. K. (1997). “Visual Representation and Post-Constructivist History of Science.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 28, 1: 139–171.Google Scholar

Papineau, D. (2021). “Naturalism.” In E. Zalta (ed.), Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/naturalism/.Google Scholar

Patton, Lydia (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 and Littlefield.Google Scholar

Patton, Lydia (2021). “Kuhn’s Kantian Dimensions.” In Wray, K. Brad (ed.), Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays, pp. 27–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pettigrove, G. (2016). “Changing Our Mind.” In Brady, M. and Fricker, M. (eds.), The Epistemic Life of Groups, pp. 111–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Pickering, Andrew (2001). “Reading the Structure.” Perspectives on Science 9, 4: 499–510.Google Scholar

Pickering, Andrew (2012). “The World since Kuhn,” Social Studies of Science 42, 3: 467–473.Google Scholar

Pigliucci, Massimo, and Boudry, Maarten (eds.) (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Pinch, Trevor (2017). “All Pumped Up about the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge.” Isis 108, 1: 127–129.Google Scholar

Pirozelli, P. (2021). “The Structure of Scientific Controversies: Thomas Kuhn’s Social Epistemology.” Filosofia Unisinos: Unisinos Journal of Philosophy 22, 3: 1–17.Google Scholar

Pitt, Joseph C. (2001). “The Dilemma of Case Studies: Toward a Heraclitian Philosophy of Science.” Perspectives on Science 9, 4: 372–383.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. (1935/1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Popper, Karl R. (1970). “Normal Science and Its Dangers.” 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, vol. 4, pp. 51–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Porter, A., Cohen, A., David Roessner, J., and Perreault, M. J. S. (2007). “Measuring Researcher Interdisciplinarity.” Scientometrics 72, 1: 117–147.Google Scholar

Porter, A., and Rafols, I. (2009). “Is Science Becoming More Interdisciplinary? Measuring and Mapping Six Research Fields over Time.” Scientometrics 81, 3: 719–745.Google Scholar

Porter, A., and Rossini, F. (1985). “Peer Review of Interdisciplinary Research Proposals.” Science, Technology, and Human Values 10, 3: 33–38.Google Scholar

Poulsen, M.-B. J. (2001). “Competition and Cooperation: What Roles in Science Dynamics?” International Journal of Technology, Policy and Management 22, 7–8: 782–793.Google Scholar

Preston, John (1997a). Feyerabend: Philosophy, Science and Society. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Preston, John (1997b). “Feyerabend’s Retreat from Realism.” Philosophy of Science 64 (Proceedings): S421–S431.Google Scholar

Preston, John, Munévar, Gonzalo, and Lamb, David (eds.) (2000). The Worst Enemy of Science? Essays in Memory of Paul Feyerabend. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Price, Derek de Solla (1963). Little Science, Big Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Putnam, Hilary (1975). “The Meaning of ‘Meaning.’” Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 7: 131–193.Google Scholar

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

Quine, W. V. O. (1960). Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1969). “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, pp. 69–90. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Quine, W. V. O. (1971). “Epistemology Naturalized.” In Gabriel, L. (ed.), Akten des XIV. Internationalen Kongresses für Philosophie Wien, 2.–9. September 1968, vol. 6, pp. 87–103. Vienna: Herder.Google Scholar

Quinn, T. (2011). “Time, the SI and the Metre Convention.” Metrologia 48, 4: S121.Google Scholar

Radick, Gregory (2016). “Teach Students the Biology of Their Time.” Nature 533 (May 19): 293.Google Scholar

Rasmussen, S. B. (2014). Potentialeledelse: Om strategisk ledelse i fagprofessionelle organisationer. Copenhagen: Barlebo Forlag.Google Scholar

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

Reingold, Nathan (1987). “Vannevar Bush’s New Deal for Research: Or the Triumph of the Old Order.” Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences 17, 2: 299–344.Google Scholar

Reisch, George A. (1991). “Did Kuhn Kill Logical Positivism?” Philosophy of Science 58: 264–277.Google Scholar

Reisch, George A. (1998). “Pluralism, Logical Empiricism, and the Problem of Pseudoscience.” Philosophy of Science 65, 2: 333–348.Google Scholar

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

Reisch, George A. (2021a). “A Public Intellectual and a Private Scholar: On Thomas Kuhn, James B. Conant, and the Place of History and Philosophy of Science in Postwar America.” In Wray, K. Brad (ed.), Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays, pp. 45–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Reisch, George A. (2021b). “Thomas Kuhn’s Quest for Physical Theory: Editor’s Introduction.” In Reisch, George (ed.), The Quest for Physical Theory: Problems in the Methodology of Scientific Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Libraries Digital Collections.Google Scholar

Renn, J. (2015). “The History of Science and the Globalization of Knowledge.” In Arabatzis, T., Renn, J., and Simões, A. (eds.), Relocating the History of Science, pp. 241–252. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Renzi, B. G. (2009). “Kuhn’s Evolutionary Epistemology and Its Being Undermined by Inadequate Biological Concepts.” Philosophy of Science 76: 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: 468–476.Google Scholar

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

Richardson, Alan W. (1998). Carnap’s Construction of the World: The Aufbau and the Emergence of Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan W. (2002). “Narrating the History of Reason Itself: Friedman, Kuhn, and a Constitutive A Priori for the Twenty-First Century.” Perspectives on Science 10, 3: 253–274.Google Scholar

Richardson, Alan W. (2006). “The Many Unities of Science: Politics, Semantics, and Ontology.” In Keller, Stephen H., Longino, Helen E., and Waters, C. Kenneth (eds.), Scientific Pluralism, pp. 1–25. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar

Rolin, K. (2008). “Science as Collective Knowledge.” Cognitive Systems Research 9, 1–2: 115–124.Google Scholar

Rorty, R. (1997/1999). “Thomas Kuhn, Rocks and the Laws of Physics.” In Philosophy and Social Hope, pp. 175–189. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar

Rosa, E. B., and Dorsey, N. E. (1907). “A New Determination of the Ratio of the Electromagnetic to the Electrostatic Unit of Electricity.” Bulletin of the Bureau of Standards 3, 3: 433–540.Google Scholar

Roth, Paul A. (2013). “The Silence of the Norms: The Missing Historiography of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 44, 4: 545–552.Google Scholar

Rothleitner, C., and Schlamminger, S. (2017). “Invited Review Article: Measurements of the Newtonian Constant of Gravitation, G.” Review of Scientific Instruments 88, 11: 111101.Google Scholar

Rowley, W. R. C. (1984). “The Definition of the Metre: From Polar Quadrant to the Speed of Light.” Physics Bulletin 35, 7: 282.Google Scholar

Sahlins, M. D. (1964). “Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Scientific American, 210, 5 (May): 142–144.Google Scholar

Sankey, Howard (2011). “Epistemic Relativism and the Problem of the Criterion.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 42, 4: 562–570.Google Scholar

Sankey, Howard (2012). “Scepticism, Relativism and the Argument from the Criterion.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science A 43, 1: 182–190.Google Scholar

Sankey, Howard (2020). “The Relativistic Legacy of Kuhn and Feyerabend.” In Kusch, Martin (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Relativism, pp. 379–387. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Saul, Stephanie (2022). “N.Y.U. Students Were Failing Class. The Professor Lost His Job.” New York Times, Section A (October 3): 1.Google Scholar

Scheffler, Israel (1967). Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar

Schickore, Jutta (2011). “More Thoughts on HPS: Another 20 Years Later.” Perspectives on Science 19, 3: 453–481.Google Scholar

Schickore, Jutta, and Steinle, Friedrich (2006). “Introduction: Revisiting the Context Distinction.” In Schickore, J. and Steinle, F. (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification, pp. 7–19. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Schindler, Samuel (2013). “The Kuhnian Mode of HPS.” Synthese 190, 18: 4137–4154.Google Scholar

Schwab, Joseph J. (1962). The Teaching of Science as Enquiry. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar

Searle, John R. (1993). “Rationality and Realism, What Is at Stake?” Daedalus 122, 4: 55–83.Google Scholar

Secord, James A. (2004). “Knowledge in Transit.” Isis 95, 4: 654–672.Google Scholar

Seidel, Markus (2013). “Between Relativism and Absolutism? – The Failure of Kuhn’s Moderate Relativism.” In M. Hoeltje, T. Spitzley, and W. Spohn (eds.), Was dürfen wir glauben? Was sollen wir tun? Sektionsbeiträge des achten internationalen Kongresses der Gesellschaft für Analytische Philosophie e.V., pp. 172–185. Online Publication of the University of Duisburg–Essen (DuEPublico), https://duepublico2.uni-due.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/duepublico_derivate_00033085/GAP8_Proceedings.pdf.Google Scholar

Seidel, Markus (2014). Epistemic Relativism: A Constructive Critique. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Seidel, Markus (2021a). “Portraying the Relativist Spectrum.” Metascience 30: 357–360.Google Scholar

Seidel, Markus (2021b). “Kuhn’s Two Accounts of Scientific Disagreement in Science: An Interpretation and Critique.” Synthese 198: 6023–6051.Google Scholar

Šešelja, D., and Straßer, C. (2013). “Kuhn and the Question of Pursuit Worthiness.” Topoi 32, 1: 9–19.Google Scholar

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

Shan, Yafeng (2020). “Kuhn’s ‘Wrong Turning’ and Legacy Today.” Synthese 197, 1: 381–406.Google Scholar

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

Shapin, Steven (1980). “Social Uses of Science.” In Rousseau, G. S. and Porter, R. (eds.), The Ferment of Knowledge: Studies in the Historiography of Eighteenth-Century Science, pp. 93–139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shapin, Steven (1992). “Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of Science as Seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate.” History of Science 30: 333–369.Google Scholar

Shapin, Steven (2008). The Scientific Life: A Moral History of a Late Modern Vocation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Shapin, Steven (2015). “Kuhn’s Structure: A Moment in Modern Naturalism.” In Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 11–21. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Shapin, Steven, and Schaffer, Simon (1985). Leviathan and the Air Pump. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Shapiro, S. J. (2002). “Law, Plans, and Practical Reason.” Legal Theory 8, 4: 387–441.Google Scholar

Sharrock, W., and Read, R. (2002). Kuhn: Philosopher of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Shaw, Jamie, and Bschir, Karim (2021). “Introduction: Paul Feyerabend’s Philosophy in the Twenty-First Century.” In Bschir, Karim and Shaw, Jamie (eds.), Interpreting Feyerabend: Critical Essays, pp. 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Shipman, Harry L. (2000). “Thomas Kuhn’s Influence on Astronomers.” Science and Education 9: 161–171.Google Scholar

Siegel, Harvey (1990). Educating Reason: Rationality, Critical Thinking and Education. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Siegel, Harvey (2011). “Relativism, Incoherence, and the Strong Programme.” In Schantz, R. and Seidel, M. (eds.), The Problem of Relativism in the Sociology of (Scientific) Knowledge, pp. 41–64. Frankfurt: Ontos.Google Scholar

Sigurdsson, S. (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. Berlin: Edition Open Access.Google Scholar

Smart, J. J. C. (1956). “Extreme and Restricted Utilitarianism.” Philosophical Quarterly 6: 344–354.Google Scholar

Smith, George E. (2010). “Revisiting Accepted Science: The Indispensability of the History of Science,” ed. Sugden, Sherwood J. B.. Monist 93, 4: 545–579.Google Scholar

Smith, George E. (2014). “Closing the Loop: Testing Newtonian Gravity, Then and Now.” In Biener, Z. and Schliesser, E. (eds.), Newton and Empiricism, pp. 262–351. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Sober, Elliott (2009). Core Questions in Philosophy: A Text with Readings, 5th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Soler, Léna (2022). “Incompatible Judgments about the Operational Coherence and Success of Competing Epistemic Systems of Practice.” Presentation at the conference “Can Realism Allow Pluralism and Contingency,” Université de Lorraine, October 19.Google Scholar

Solomon, Miriam (2001). Social Empiricism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Solomon, Miriam, and Richardson, Alan (2005). “A Critical Context for Longino’s Critical Contextual Empiricism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36, 1: 211–222.Google Scholar

“Stem Futures: The Future Substance of STEM Education Project.” STEM Futures. Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College. Last revised October 7, 2022. Accessed October 31, 2022. https://serc.carleton.edu/stemfutures/index.html.Google Scholar

Stewart, David, Blocker, H. Gene, and Petrik, James (2013). Fundamentals of Philosophy, 8th ed. Boston: Pearson.Google Scholar

Stopes-Roe, H. V. (1964). “Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 15, 58: 158–161.Google Scholar

Struik, D. (1967). A Concise History of Mathematics. London: Bell and Sons.Google Scholar

Sunstein, C. R. (2002). “The Law of Group Polarization.” Journal of Political Philosophy 10, 2: 175–195.Google Scholar

Suppe, F. (ed.) (1974). The Structure of Scientific Theories, pp. 459–482. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar

Suppes, Patrick (1978). “The Plurality of Science.” In Asquith, Peter and Hacking, Ian (eds.), PSA 1978: Proceedings of the 1978 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 2, pp. 3–16. East Lansing, MI: Philosophy of Science Association.Google Scholar

Tal, E. (2011). “How Accurate Is the Standard Second?” Philosophy of Science 78, 5: 1082–1096.Google Scholar

Tanghe, K. B., Pauwels, L., De Tiège, A., and Braeckman, J. (2021). “Interpreting the History of Evolutionary Biology through a Kuhnian Prism: Sense or Nonsense?” Perspectives on Science 29, 1: 1–35.Google Scholar

Tarski, Alfred (1956). “The Concept of Truth in Formalized Languages.” In Corcoran, John (ed.) and Translated by Woodger, J. W., Logic, Semantics, Metamathematics: Papers from 1923 to 1938. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Taylor, B. N., Parker, W. H. and Langenberg, D. N. (1969). “Determination of e/h, Using Macroscopic Quantum Phase Coherence in Superconductors: Implications for Quantum Electrodynamics and the Fundamental Physical Constants.” Reviews of Modern Physics 41, 3: 375–496.Google Scholar

Taylor, Barry N. (1971). “Comments on Least-Squares Adjustments of the Constants.” In Langenberg, D. N. and Taylor, B. N. (eds.), Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants, pp. 495–498. Washington, DC: National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar

Thackray, A. (1984). “Sarton, Science, and History.” Isis 75, 1: 7–9.Google Scholar

Tiesinga, E., Mohr, P. J., Newell, D. B., and Taylor, B. (2021). “CODATA Recommended Values of the Fundamental Physical Constants: 2018.” Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 2: 025010.Google Scholar

Toon, Ernest R., and George L., Ellis (1978). Foundations of Chemistry. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar

Toulmin, Stephen (1970). “Does the Distinction between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?” In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 29–48. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tsou, Jonathan Y. (2003a). “A Role for Reason in Science.” Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review 42, 3: 573–598.Google Scholar

Tsou, Jonathan Y. (2003b). “Reconsidering Feyerabend’s ‘Anarchism.’” Perspectives on Science 11, 2: 208–235.Google Scholar

Tsou, Jonathan Y. (2010). “Putnam’s Account of Apriority and Scientific Change: Its Historical and Contemporary Interest.” Synthese 176, 3: 429–445.Google Scholar

Tsou, Jonathan 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. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar

Tsou, Jonathan Y. (forthcoming). “Philosophical Naturalism and Empirical Approaches to Philosophy.” In Rossberg, Marcus (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Analytic Philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Tuomela, Raimo (1992). “Group Beliefs.” Synthese 91, 3: 285–318.Google Scholar

Urmson, J. O. (1953). “The Interpretation of the Moral Philosophy of J. S. Mill.” Philosophical Quarterly 3: 33–39.Google Scholar

van Berkel, Berry, de Vos, Wobbe, Verdonk, Adri H., and Pilot, Albert (2000). “Normal Science Education and Its Dangers: The Case of School Chemistry.” Science and Education 9: 123–159.Google Scholar

Wagenknecht, Susann (2016). A Social Epistemology of Research Groups: Collaboration in Scientific Practice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar