Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T15:16:11.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Bibliography

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 June 2021

Edited by
K. Brad Wray
K. Brad Wray
Affiliation:
Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Interpreting Kuhn
Critical Essays
 , pp. 238 - 263
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achenbach, J. (2019). “Scientists Are Baffled: What’s Up with the Universe?” The Washington Post, (accessed November 1, 2019). www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?next_url=https%3a%2f%2fwww.washingtonpost.com%2fscience%2fscientists-are-baffled-whats-up-with-the-universe%2f2019%2f10%2f31%2f31fc42e4-f353-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.htmlGoogle Scholar
Agassi, J. and Jarvie, I. (2008). A Critical Rationalist Aesthetics. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alexander, P. (1974). “Boyle and Locke on Primary and Secondary Qualities.” Ratio 16: 51–67.Google Scholar
Allais, L. (2007). “Kant’s Idealism and the Secondary Quality Analogy.” Journal of the History of Philosophy 45, 3: 459–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allais, L. (2015). Manifest Reality: Kant’s Idealism and His Realism. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allison, H. (1983/2003). Kant’s Transcendental Idealism. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Andersen, A. (2013). “A Second Essential Tension: On Tradition and Innovation in Interdisciplinary Research.” Topoi 32: 3–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. (2000). “Learning by Ostension.” Science and Education 9, 1: 91–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, H. (2001). On Kuhn. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
Andersen, H., Barker, P., and Chen, X. (2006). The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Andresen, J. (1999). “Crisis and Kuhn.” Isis 90, S2 (Supplement): S43–S67.Google Scholar
Ankeny, R. A. and Leonelli, S. (2016). “Repertoires: A Post-Kuhnian Perspective on Scientific Change and Collaborative Research.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 60: 18–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Arabatzis, Theodore. (2005). Representing Electrons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ariew, R. (2006). “The Sphere of Jacques Du Chevreul: Astronomy at the University of Paris in the 1620s.” In Feingold, M. and Navarro-Brotóns, V. (eds.), Universities and Science in the Early Modern Period, pp. 99–109. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Averill, E. W. (1982). “The Primary-Secondary Quality Distinction.” Philosophical Review 91: 343–362.Google Scholar
Ayers, M. (2011). “Primary and Secondary Qualities in Locke’s Essay.” In Nola, L. (ed.), Primary and Secondary Qualities: The Historical and Ongoing Debate, pp. 136–157. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2000). “The Role of Religion in the Lutheran Response to Copernicus.” In Osler, M. J. (ed.), Rethinking the Scientific Revolution, pp. 59–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2001). “Incommensurability and Conceptual Change during the Copernican Revolution.” In Hoyningen-Huene, P. and Sankey, H. (eds.), Incommensurability and Related Matters, pp. 241–273. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2002). “Constructing Copernicus.” In Barker, P. (ed.), New Foundations in the History of Astronomy. Perspectives on Science, 10: pp. 208–227 (published 2003). www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/106361402321147496?mobileUi=0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, P. (2004a). “Astronomy, Providence and the Lutheran Contribution to Science.” In Menuge, A. J. L. (ed.), Reading God’s World: The Scientific Vocation, pp. 157–187. St. Louis: Concordia Press.Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2004b). “How Rothmann Changed His Mind.” In Bowen, A. et al. (eds.), Astronomy and Astrology from the Babylonians to Kepler. Centaurus, 46: pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2005). “The Lutheran Contribution to the Astronomical Revolution.” In Brooke, J. and Ihsanoglu, E. (eds.), Religious Values and the Rise of Science in Europe, pp. 31–62. Istanbul: Research Centre for Islamic Art History and Culture (IRCICA).Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2009). “The Hypotyposes Orbium Coelestium (Strasbourg, 1568).” In Granada, M. A. and Mehl, E. (eds.), Nouveau Ciel Nouvelle Terre – La Révolution Copernicienne dans l’Allemagne de la Réforme (1530–1630), pp. 85–108. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2011a). “The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Erkenntnis 75: 445–465. DOI: 10.1007/s10670-011-9333-8Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2011b). “The Reality of Peurbach’s Orbs.” In Boner, P. J. (ed.), Change and Continuity in Early Modern Cosmology, pp. 7–32. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, P. (2013a). “Why Was Copernicus a Copernican?” Metascience 22: 1–6.Google Scholar
Barker, P. (2013b). “Albert of Brudzewo’s Little Commentary on Peurbach’s New Theorica.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 44: 1–24.Google Scholar
Barker, P. and Goldstein, B. R. (2001). “Theological Foundations of Kepler’s Astronomy.” In Brooke, J. H., Osler, M. J., and van der Meer, J. (eds.), Science in Theistic Contexts: Cognitive Dimensions. Osiris, 16: pp. 88–113.Google Scholar
Barker, P. and Goldstein, B. R. (2003). “Patronage and the Production of De Revolutionibus.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 34: 345–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barker, P. and Heidarzadeh, T. (2016). “Copernicus, the Ṭūsī Couple and East-West Exchange in the Fifteenth Century.” In Grenada, M. A. and Boner, P. (eds.), Man and Cosmos, pp. 19–57. Barcelona: University of Barcelona Press.Google Scholar
Barker, P. and Vesel, M. (2012). “Goddu’s Copernicus.” Aestimatio 9: 304–336.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. (1982). T. S. Kuhn and Social Science. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. (2004). “Transcending the Discourse of Social Influences.” In Machamer, P. and Wolters, G. (eds.), Science, Values, and Objectivity, chapter 5. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Batterman, R. (2002). The Devil in the Details: Asymptotic Reasoning in Explanation, Reduction and Emergence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bernal, J. D. (1939). The Social Function of Science. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bernard of Verdun. (1961). Tractatus super totam astrologiam, ed. Hartmann, P. P.. Werl, Wesphalia: Dietrich-Coelde-Verlag.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2003). “Kuhn, Nominalism, and Empiricism.” Philosophy of Science 70, 4: 690–719.Google Scholar
Bird, A. (2012). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and Its Significance: An Essay Review of the Fiftieth Anniversary Edition.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 63, 4: 859–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackburn, S. (2014). “Creativity and Not-So-Dumb Luck.” In Paul, E. S. and Kaufman, S. B. (eds.), The Philosophy of Creativity: New Essays, pp. 147–156. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. (2016). “The Pendulum as a Social Institution: T. S. Kuhn and the Sociology of Science.” In Blum, A., et al. (eds.), Shifting Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science, pp. 235–252. Berlin: Edition Open Access.Google Scholar
Blum, A., Gavroglu, K., Joas, C., and Renn, J., (eds.). (2016). Shifting Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science. Berlin: Edition Open Access.Google Scholar
Bohr, N. (1913). “On the Constitution of Atoms and Molecules.” Philosophical Magazine 26: 1–25.Google Scholar
Bokulich, A. (2008). Reexamining the Quantum-Classical Relation: Beyond Reductionism and Pluralism. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boner, P. (2013). Kepler’s Cosmological Synthesis: Astrology, Mechanism and the Soul. Leiden: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonjour, L. (1985). The Structure of Empirical Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Boston Globe (1953). “Furry, Named in Probe, Still Teaching at Harvard.” Boston Globe, February 26.Google Scholar
Brandom, R. (2015). From Empiricism to Expressivism: Brandom Reads Sellars. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Brentjes, S. (2007). “Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf ibn Maṭar.” In Hockey, T. et al. (eds.), The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, Springer Reference, pp. 460–461. New York: Springer, 2007, https://islamsci.mcgill.ca/RASI/BEA/Hajjaj_ibn_Yusuf_ibn_Matar_BEA.htm, (accessed 18 July 2019).Google Scholar
Brentjes, S. (2009). “Cartography in Islamic Societies.” In Kitchin, R. and Thrift, N. (eds.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, vol. 1, pp. 414–427. Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Brentjes, S. (2010). “The Mathematical Sciences in Safavid Iran: Questions and Perspectives.” In Herrmann, D. and Speziale, F. (eds.), Muslim Cultures in the Indo-Iranian World During the Early-Modern and Modern Periods, pp. 325–402. Berlin: Klaus Schwartz.Google Scholar
Brentjes, S., Fidora, A. and Tischler, M. M. (2014). “Towards a New Approach to Medieval Cross-Cultural Exchanges.” Journal of Territorial and Maritime Studies 1, 1: 9–50. DOI 10.1515/jtms-2014–0002Google Scholar
Brorson, S. and Andersen, H. (2001). “Stabilizing and Changing Phenomenal Worlds.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 32 (1): 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burtt, E. A. (1932/1980). The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science. 2nd ed. Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Callon, M. and Latour, B. (1992). “Don’t Throw the Baby out with the Bath School! A Reply to Collins and Yearley” In Pickering, A. (ed.), Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, J. (1980). “Locke on Qualities.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy X, 4: 567–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnap, R. (1928/1967). The Logical Structure of the World. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1950). Logical Foundations of Probability. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1957). “Introductory Remarks to the English Translation.” In Reichenbach, H. The Philosophy of Space & Time, pp. v-vii. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1963). “Intellectual Autobiography.” In Schilpp, P. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, pp. 3–84. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Carnap, R. (1966/1995). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Cartwright, N. (1983). How the Laws of Physics Lie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cavell, S. (1979). The Claim of Reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2012a). “Incommensurability: Revisiting the Chemical Revolution.” In Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 153–176. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2012b). Is Water H2O?: Evidence, Realism and Pluralism. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Chang, H. (2018). “Is Pluralism Compatible with Scientific Practice?” In Saatsi, J. (ed.), Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, pp. 176–186. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Chapman, A. (1984). “Tycho Brahe in China: The Jesuit Mission to Peking and the Iconography of European Instrument Making Processes.” Annals of Science 41: 417–443.Google Scholar
Chen, X. and Barker, P. (2009). “Process Concepts and Cognitive Obstacles to Change: Perspectives on the History of Science and Science Policy.” Centaurus 51: 314–320.Google Scholar
Chirimuuta, M. (2015). Outside Color: Perceptual Science and the Puzzle of Color in Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Churchland, P. (1979). Scientific Realism and the Plasticity of Mind. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Churchland, P. (1988). “Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality: A Reply to Jerry Fodor.” Philosophy of Science 55: 167–187.Google Scholar
Coffa, J. A. (1977). “Carnap’s Sprachanschauung Circa 1932.” In Asquith, P., and Suppe, F., (eds.), PSA 1976, vol. 2. Lansing: PSA.Google Scholar
Coffa, J. A. (1991). The Semantic Tradition from Kant to Carnap. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, I. B. (1985). Revolution in Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Colyvan, M. (1998). “Can the Eleatic Principle be Justified?” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 28, 3: 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conant, J. B. (1947/1957). On Understanding Science: An Historical Approach. New York: Mentor Books.Google Scholar
Conant, J. B. (1943). “Excerpts from Conant Valedictory Address.” Crimson, January 11. www.thecrimson.com/article/1943/1/11/excerpts-from-conant-valedictory-address-pgentlemen/Google Scholar
Conant, J. B. (1946). “Civil Courage.” In Baird, A. C. (ed.) Representative American Speeches, 1945–1946, pp. 223–228. New York: H.W. Wilson.Google Scholar
Conant, J. B. (1947). On Understanding Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, J. B. (1957). Foreword. In The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, pp. xiii–xviii. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, J. B. (1970). My Several Lives: Memoirs of a Social Inventor. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Conant, J. (2020). “Reply to Gustafsson: Wittgenstein on the Relation of Sign to Symbol.” In Miguens, S. (ed.) The Logical Alien. Conant and His Critics, pp. 863–947. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (2000). The Road Since “Structure”: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Copernicus, N. (1976). On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres, tr. A. M. Duncan. New York: Barnes and Noble.Google Scholar
Crimson, The (1953). “Smith Professor Bares ‘Red Cell’ Here in 30s,” February 26. www.thecrimson.com/article/1953/2/26/smith-professor-bares-red-cell-here/Google Scholar
Crimson, The (1953a). “Hawkins Confesses Red Affiliations at Hearings,” May 11. www.thecrimson.com/article/1953/5/11/hawkins-confesses-red-affiliations-at-hearings/Google Scholar
Crimson, The (1953b). “Colorado Senate Feuds Defame Three Teachers,” May 15. www.thecrimson.com/article/1953/5/15/colorado-senate-feuds-defame-three-teachers/Google Scholar
Crimson, The (1953c). “Pusey Answers Communism Charge; McCarthy to Cite Furry for Contempt,” November 10. www.thecrimson.com/article/1953/11/10/pusey-answers-communism-charge-mccarthy-to/Google Scholar
Crowther, K. and Barker, P. (2013). “Training the Intelligent Eye: Understanding Illustrations in Early Modern Astronomy Texts.” Isis 104: 429–470.Google Scholar
Curley, E. M. (1972). “Locke, Boyle, and the Distinction between Primary and Secondary Qualities.” Philosophical Review 81:38–64.Google Scholar
D’Agostino, F. (2005). “Kuhn’s Risk-Spreading Argument and the Organization of Scientific Communities.” Episteme 1, 3: 201–209.Google Scholar
Danielson, D. (2014). Paradise Lost and the Cosmological Revolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daston, L. (2016). “History of Science without Structure.” In Richards, R. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic, pp. 115–132. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, D. (1974). “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme.” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47, 5: 5–20.Google Scholar
DavisJr., R. (2019). Biographical.NobelPrize.org. Nobel Media AB 2019. Wed. 20 November 2019. www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2002/davis/biographical/Google Scholar
De Langhe, R. (2017). “Towards the Discovery of Scientific Revolutions in Scientometric Data.” Scientometrics 110:505–519.Google Scholar
Demos, R. (1936). “On Persuasion.” The Journal of Philosophy 29, 9: 225–232.Google Scholar
Deng, K. H. (2011). “The Cosmology in Wuweilizhi.” Journal of Dialectics of Nature 33, 1: 36–43.Google Scholar
Devlin, W. J. (2015). “An Analysis of Truth in Kuhn’s Philosophical Enterprise.” In Devlin, W. J., and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 153–166. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 311: Springer.Google Scholar
Devlin, W. and Bokulich, A. (eds.) (2015). Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 311: Springer.Google Scholar
DeVries, W. (2005). Wilfrid Sellars. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dewey, J. (1938). Logic. The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt and Company.Google Scholar
Dinis, A. (2017). A Jesuit Against Galileo? The Strange Case of Giovanni Battista Riccioli’s Cosmology. Braga: Axioma.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duhem, P. (1982/1914). The Aim and Structure of Physical Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Earley, J. E., (2005). “Why There is No Salt in the Sea.” Foundations of Chemistry 7: 85–102. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:FOCH.0000042881.05418.15Google Scholar
Ereshefsky, M. (2014). “Species and Taxonomy.” In Curd, M. and Psillos, S. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, 2nd ed., pp. 523–530. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Escobar, L. E. and Craft, M. (2016). “Advances and Limitations of Disease Biogeography Using Ecological Niche Modeling.” Frontiers in Microbiology 07. 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01174.Google Scholar
Fazlıoğlu, İ. (2007). “Qūshjī: Abū al‐Qāsim ʿAlāʾ al‐Dīn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad Qushči‐zāde.” In Hockey, T. et al. (eds.), The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, Springer Reference, pp. 946–948. New York: Springer, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felappi, G. (2017). “Susanne Langer and the Woeful World of Facts.” Journal for the History of Analytical Philosophy 5, 2: 38–50.Google Scholar
Ferrari, M. (2012). “Between Cassirer and Kuhn.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43: 18–26.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1962). “Explanation, Reduction and Empiricism.” In Feigl, H. and Maxwell, G. (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space, and Time (Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science, vol. III), pp. 28–97. Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. (1975/1988). Against Method, revised ed. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Flexner, A. (1939/2017). The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. (1984). “Observation Reconsidered.” Philosophy of Science 51: 21–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fodor, J. (1988). “A Reply to Churchland’s ‘Perceptual Plasticity and Theoretical Neutrality’.” Philosophy of Science 55: 188–198.Google Scholar
Forrester, J. (2007). “On Kuhn’s Case: Psychoanalysis and the Paradigm.” Critical Inquiry 33 (Summer): 782–819.Google Scholar
Frank, P. (1949). Modern Science and Its Philosophy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (1992). Kant and the Exact Sciences. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2002). “Kant, Kuhn, and the Rationality of Science.” In History of Philosophy of Science, vol. 9, Vienna Circle Institute Yearbook, pp. 25–41. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. (2008). “Ernst Cassirer and Thomas Kuhn.” Philosophical Forum 39, 2: 239–252.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. (2001). Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems: Ptolemaic and Copernican, tr. S. Drake. New York: Modern Library.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. (2016). Sidereus Nuncius, or the Sidereal Messenger, tr. A. Van Helden. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galilei, G. and Scheiner, C. (2010). On Sunspots, tr. E. Reeves and A. Van Helden. Chicago: 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
Galison, P. (1990). “Aufbau/Bauhaus: Logical Positivism and Architectural Modernism.” Critical Inquiry 16, 4: 709–752.Google Scholar
Galison, P. (1997). Image and Logic. Chicago: University of Chicago 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 Science Classic, pp. 42–67. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Garfield, E. (1979–1980). “Most-cited Authors in the Arts and Humanities, 1977–1978.” Essays of an Information Scientist 4: 238–243.Google Scholar
Gattei, S. (2008). Thomas Kuhn’s ‘Linguistic Turn’ and the Legacy of Logical Empiricism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (1988). Explaining Science: A Cognitive Approach. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (2004). “How Models are Used to Represent Reality.” Philosophy of Science 71: 742–752.Google Scholar
Giere, R. (2006). Scientific Perspectivism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Goldstein, B. R. (1967). “The Arabic Version of Ptolemy’s Hypotheses.” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. New Series, 57, 4: 3–55.Google Scholar
Goldstein, B. and Hon, G. (2007). “Kepler’s Move from Orbs to Orbits: Documenting a Revolutionary Scientific Concept.” Perspectives on Science 3: 74–110.Google Scholar
Gombrich, E. (1950/1995). The Story of Art. London: Phaidon Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, W. (2013). “Structure and Scientific Controversies.” Topoi 32: 101–110.Google Scholar
Goodwin, W. (2015). “Revolution and Progress in Medicine.” Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 36: 25–39.Google Scholar
Graney, C. M. (2015). Setting Aside All Authority: Giovanni Battista Riccioli and His Science against Copernicus in the Age of Galileo. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Grant, E. (1996). Planets, Stars and Orbs: The Medieval Cosmos, 1200–1687. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Green, E. (2016). “What are the Most-cited Publications in the Social Sciences (according to Google Scholar),” https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2016/05/12/what-are-the-most-cited-publications-in-the-social-sciences-according-to-google-scholar/, (accessed February 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Greif, M. (2015). The Age of the Crisis of Man. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Griffel, F. (2009). Al-Ghazālī’s Philosophical Theology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Griffel, F. (Forthcoming). Ashʿarite Occasionalist Cosmology, al-Ghazālī and the Pursuit of the Natural Sciences in Islamicate Societies. In Brentjes, S. (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Practices in Islamicate Societies (8th-19th centuries). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grube, D. M. (2013) “Interpreting Kuhn’s Incommensurability-Thesis: Its Different Meanings and Epistemological Consequences.” Philosophy Study 3, 5: 377–397.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hadamard, J. (1945). An Essay on the Psychology of Invention in the Mathematical Field. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, K. (2001). “Some Philosophical Consequences of Wittgenstein’s Aeronautical Research.” Perspectives on Science 9, 1: 1–37.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (1958). Patterns of Discovery. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hanson, N. R. (n.d.). “Report on Dr. T. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” University of Chicago Press Papers, University of Chicago Special Collections, box 278, folder 4.Google Scholar
Hartner, W. (1969). Nasir al-Din al-Ṭūsī’s Lunar Theory. Physis 11: 287–304.Google Scholar
Hartner, W. (1973). Copernicus, the Man, the Work, and Its History. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117: 413–422.Google Scholar
Harvard University (1945). Committee on the Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. The Objectives of a General Education in a Free Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hasse, D. N. (2016). Success and Suppression: Arabic Sciences and Philosophy in the Renaissance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Heidegger, M. and Gendlin, E. T. (1985). What is a Thing? Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. (1998). “Thomas Samuel Kuhn, 18 July 1922–17 June 1996.” Isis 89, 3: 505–515.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. (2016). “Where to Start?” In Blum, A., et al. (eds.), Shifting Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science, pp. 3–13. Berlin: Edition Open Access.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (1980). “Comments on Goodman’s Ways of Worldmaking.” Synthese 45: 193–199.Google Scholar
Hempel, C. G. (2001). The Philosophy of Carl G. Hempel, ed. Fetzer, J.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hershberg, J. (1993). James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1961). Forces and Fields. London: Thomas Nelson.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. (1963/1966). Models and Analogies in Science. London: Sheed and Ward. 2nd, revised ed. Notre Dame, IN: Notre Dame University Press.Google Scholar
Hirst, R. J. (1967). “Primary and Secondary Qualities.” In The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. by Edwards, P., pp. 455–457. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Hintikka, J. (1996). “Contemporary Philosophy and the Problem of Truth.” Acta Philosophica Fennica 6, 1: 23–29.Google Scholar
Hintikka, M. B., and Hintikka, J. (1986). Investigating Wittgenstein. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Holton, G. (2006). “Philipp Frank at Harvard University.” Synthese 153, 2: 297–311.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1993). Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. (1994). “Niels Bohr’s Argument for the Irreducibility of Biology to Physics.” In Faye, J. and Folse, H. (eds.), Niels Bohr and Contemporary Philosophy, pp. 231–255. Dordrecht: Kluwer.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, pp. 185–195. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 311: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. and Oberheim, E. (2009). “Reference, Ontological Replacement and Neo-Kantianism: A Reply to Sankey.” Studies In History and Philosophy of Science Part A 40, 2: 203–209.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P., Oberheim, E. and Andersen, H. (1996). “On Incommensurability.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 27, 1: 131–141.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, K. (2012). “From Student of Physics to Historian of Science: T. S. Kuhn’s Education and Early Career.” Physical Perspectives 14: 421–70.Google Scholar
Hutcheson, K. (1987). “Towards a Political Iconology of the Copernican Revolution.” In Curry, P. (ed.) Astrology, Science and Society: Historical Essays, pp. 94–141. Woodbridge, Suffolk: Boydell Press.Google Scholar
al-Haytham, Ibn, (1971). Doubts about Ptolemy (Shukūk ʻalā Baṭlamyūs). ed. A. I. Sabra. [al-Qāhira]: Maṭbaʻat Dār al-Kutub.Google Scholar
Iliffe, R. (2017). Priest of Nature: The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
James, W. (1981). Pragmatism. Indianapolis: Hackett, (orig. Longmans, Green, 1907).Google Scholar
Jardine, N. (1984). The Birth of History and Philosophy of Science: Kepler’s A Defence of Tycho against Ursus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jardine, N. and Segonds, A. P. (2008). La guerre des astronomes: la querelle au sujet de l’origine du système géo-héliocentrique à la fin du XVIe siècle. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Jost, W. and Hyde, M. (eds.) (1997). “Introduction. Rhetoric and Hermeneutics.” In Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Our Time. pp. 1–44. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Kaempffert, W. (1938). “Toward Bridging the Gaps between the Sciences.” New York Times, August 7. www.nytimes.com/1938/08/07/archives/toward-bridging-the-gaps-between-the-sciences-an-encyclopedia.htmlGoogle 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 Science Classic, pp. 71–95. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1781&1787/1998). Critique of Pure Reason, ed., tr. P. Guyer and A. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1783/2004) Prolegomena to Any Future Metaphysics That Will be Able to Come Forward as Science: With Selections from the Critique of Pure Reason, ed., tr. Hatfield, G. C.. Rev. ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. and Sternberg, R. J. (2010). The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, T. D. (1993). The Mastery of Nature: Aspects of Art, Science, and Humanism in the Renaissance. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Kaulbach, F. (1973). “Die Copernicanische Denkfigur bei Kant.” Kant-Studien 64, 1: 30–48.Google Scholar
Keating, L. (1993). “Un-Locke-ing Boyle: Boyle on Primary and Secondary Qualities.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 10: 305–323.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E. S. (1966). “Late Medieval Planetary Theory.” Isis 57: 365–378. Reprinted in E. S. Kennedy, et al. (1983). Studies in the Islamic Exact Sciences, pp. 84–97. Beirut: American University of Beirut.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E. S. (1971). “Planetary Theory in the Medieval Near East and Its Transmission to Europe.” In Cerullo, E. et al. (eds.), Orient e Occidente nel Medioevo: filosophia e scienze, pp. 98–107. Rome, Academia Nazionale dei Lincei.Google Scholar
Kennedy, E. S. and Roberts, V. (1959). “The Planetary Theory of Ibnal‐Shāṭir.” Isis 50: 227–235.Google Scholar
Kepler, J. (2015). Astronomia Nova. Revised ed. tr. W. H. Donahue. Santa Fe, NM: Green Lion Press.Google Scholar
Kindi, V. (2009). “Second Thoughts on Wittgenstein’s Secondary Sense.” In Munz, V. A., Puhl, K., and Wang, J. (eds.), Language and World, pp. 202–204. 32nd International Wittgenstein Symposium, Kirchberg am Wechsel.Google Scholar
Kindi, V. (2010). “Novelty and Revolution in Art and Science: The Influence of Kuhn on Cavell.” Perspectives on Science 18, 3: 284–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kindi, V. (2012). “Kuhn’s Paradigms.” In Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 91–111. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kindi, V. (2016). “Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Science.” In Glock, H. J. and Hyman, J. (eds.), A Companion to Wittgenstein, pp. 587–602. New York: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.) (2012). Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
King, D. A. (1975). “Ibn al‐Shāṭir.” In Gillispie, C. C. (ed.), Dictionary of Scientific Biography, 18, 7: 357–364.Google Scholar
King, D. A. (2007). “Ibn al‐Shāṭir: ʿAlāʾ al‐Dīn ʿAlī ibn Ibrāhīm.” In Hockey, T., et al. (eds.), The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, pp. 569–570. Springer Reference. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
King, D. A., Samsó, J. and Goldstein, B. R. (2001). “Astronomical Handbooks and Tables from the Islamic World (750–1900): An Interim Report.” Suhayl 2: 9–105.Google Scholar
Kitcher, P. (1993). The Advancement of Science: Science without Legend, Objectivity without Illusions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klein, M. (1970). Paul Ehrenfest, vol. I. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Klein, M., Shimony, A., and Pinch, T. (1979). “Paradigm Lost?” Isis 70: 429–440.Google Scholar
Koestler, A. (1981/1985). “The Three Domains of Creativity.” In Duttoon, D. and Krausz, M. (eds.), The Concept of Creativity in Science and Art, pp. 1–17. Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
Koyré, A. (1939). Études galiléennes. Paris: Hermann.Google Scholar
Kragh, H. (2000). “Conceptual Changes in Chemistry: The Notion of Chemical Elements, ca. 1900–1925.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Physics 31: 435–450.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1941). “The War and My Crisis,” TSK Archives–MC240, box 1, folder 3.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1943) “Phi Beta Kappa Address,” TSK Archives–MC240, box 1, folder 3.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1945). “Subjective View. Thomas S. Kuhn, on Behalf of the Recent Students, Reflects Undergraduate Attitude.” Harvard Alumni Bulletin, September 22, 29–30.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1951a). Letter to Ralph Lowell, February 20, TSK Archives–MC240, box 3, folder 10.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1951b). Letter to Dean Owen, January 6, TSK Archives–MC240, box 3, folder 10.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1953). Letter to Charles Morris, July 3, TSK Archives—MC240, box 25, folder 53.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1955). “Can the Layman Know Science? State Teachers College—Bridgewater, Massachusetts 12/13/55,” TSK Archives—MC240, box 3, folder 33.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1957/2003). The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1959/1977). “The Essential Tension: Tradition and Innovation in Scientific Research.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 225–239. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962a). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962b) Letter from Thomas S. Kuhn to Edwin B. Boring, November 29, TSK Archives— MC 240, box 4, folder 7.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The second, 1970, edition includes “Postscript-1969.”Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1977). “The Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 165–177. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 3rd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. 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, T. 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 Innovation, from Antiquity to the Present, pp. 347–369. London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1964/1977). “A Function for Thought Experiments.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 240–265. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1967). “Paradigms and Theories in Scientific Research.” TSK Archives—MC 240, box 3, folder 14. Cited from Marcum 2012a.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1969/1974). “Second Thoughts on Paradigms – 1969 lecture” In Suppe, F. (ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories, pp. 459–482. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1969/1977). “Comment on the Relations of Science and Art.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 340–351. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1969/2012). “Postscript – 1969.” In Fourth edition, 50th anniversary edition. With an Introductory Essay by Ian Hacking, pp. 173–208.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970/2000) “Reflections on My Critics.” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 123–175, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1970/1977). “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 266–292. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1971/1977). “Concepts of Cause in the Development of Physics.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 21–30. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1973). Letter to Kenneth Pietrzak, April 17, TSK Archives–MC240, box 10.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1973/1977). “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 320–339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1974/1977). “Second Thoughts on Paradigms.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 293–319. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1976/1977). “The Relation between the History and the Philosophy of Science.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 3–20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1976/2000). “Theory-Change as Structure-Change: Comments on the Sneed Formalism.” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 176–195, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977a). The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977b). “Preface.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. ix–xxiii. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977c). “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.” In The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 320–339. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1978). Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1979). “Metaphor in Science.” In Ortony, A. (ed.), Metaphor and Thought, pp. 409–419. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1979/2000). “Metaphor in Science.” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 196–207, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1983/2000). “Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability.” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 33–57, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1984). “Lecture IV – Conveying the Past to the Present.” Lectures/Meetings: Thalheimer Lectures, “Scientific Development and Lexical Change,” TSK Archives—MC 240, box 23.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1984/2017). Desarrollo científico y cambio de léxico. Conferencias Thalheimer, ed. Melogno, P.. Montevideo: ANII/UdelaR/SADAF.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1987/2000). “What are Scientific Revolutions?” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 13–32, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1989/2000). “Possible Worlds in History of Science.” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 58–89, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1990). “The Road since Structure.” In PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, vol. 1990, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers, pp. 3–13.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1991/2000). “The Road since Structure.” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 90–104, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1992/2000). “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science.” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 105–120, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1993/2000). “Afterwords.” In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 224–252, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (2000a). The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, eds. Conant, J. and Haugeland, J.. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (2000b). “A Discussion with Thomas Kuhn” (with Aristides Baltas, Kostas Gavroglu, Vasso Kindi). In Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. (eds.), The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 253–323, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (n.d.) Untitled document (“Dear Professor Frank”), TSK Archives—MC240, box 25, folder 53.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (n.d.) Kuhn M1: SSR – Chapter 1 – “What are Scientific Revolutions?” TSK Archives—MC240, box 4, folder 3.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (n.d.) Kuhn M2: SSR – Chapter 1 – “Discoveries as Revolutionary.” TSK Archives—MC240, box 4, folder 3.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (n.d.) The Plurality of Worlds: An Evolutionary Theory of Scientific Development. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Kusch, M. (1989). Language as Calculus vs. Language as Universal Medium. Dordrecht Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Kusuba, T. and Pingree, D. (2002). Arabic Astronomy in Sanskrit. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Kuukkanen, Jouni-Matti. (2007). “Kuhn, the Correspondence Theory of Truth and Coherentist Epistemology.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 38: 555–566.Google Scholar
Kuukkanen, Jouni-Matti (2012). “The Concept of Evolution in Kuhn’s Philosophy.” In Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 134–153. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1971). “History of Science and Its Rational Reconstructions.” In Buck, R. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.), PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1970, Dordrecht: Reidel. Reprinted in I. Lakatos (1978) The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, vol. 1, pp. 102–138. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lakatos, I. (1978). The Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes: Philosophical Papers, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Langer, S. (1942/1951). Philosophy in a New Key, 2nd ed. New York: Mentor Books.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. (1984). Science and Values: The Aims of Science and their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Launert, D. (2009). Le système du monde de Nicolas Raimar Ursus comparé à ceux de Brahe et Roeslin. In Granada, M. Á. and Mehl, É (eds.), Nouveau Ciel, Nouvelle Terre: La révolution copernicienne dans l’Allemagne de la Réforme (1530–1630), pp. 155–178. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Lee, M.-K. (2011). “The Distinction between Primary and Secondary Qualities in Ancient Greek Philosophy.” In Nola, L. (ed.) Primary and Secondary Qualities: The Historical and Ongoing Debate, pp. 15–40. Nola. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lerner, M.-P. (1995). “L’entrée de Tycho Brahe chez les jésuites ou le chant du cygne de Clavius.” In Giard, L. (ed.), Les jésuites à la Renaissance: Système educatif et production du savoir, pp. 145–185. Paris: PUF.Google Scholar
Lernert, M.-P. (2008). Le monde des sphères. 2 vols. 2nd ed. Paris: Les Belles Lettres.Google Scholar
Lipton, P. (2003). “Kant on Wheels.” Social Epistemology 17, 2–3: 215–219.Google Scholar
MacBride, F. (2019). “Truthmakers.” In Zalta, E. N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Spring 2019 edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/truthmakers/Google Scholar
Macintosh, J. J. (1976). “Primary and Secondary Qualities.” Studia Leibnitiana 8:88–104.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, A. (1977). “Epistemological Crises, Dramatic Narrative, and the Philosophy of Science.” The Monist 60: 453–471.Google Scholar
Marcum, J. (2012a). “From Paradigm to Disciplinary Matrix and Exemplar.” In Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 41–63. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marcum, J. (2012b). “Wither Thomas Kuhn’s Historical Philosophy of Science? An Evolutionary Turn.” Athens: Atiner’s Conference Paper Series, No. PHI2012-0088.Google Scholar
Marcum, J. (2015a). “The Evolving Notion and Role of Kuhn’s Incommensurability Thesis.” In Devlin, W. J., and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 115–134. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 311: Springer.Google Scholar
Marcum, J. (2015b). Thomas Kuhn’s Revolutions: A Historical and an Evolutionary Philosophy of Science? London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Margolis, H. (1987). Patterns, Thinking, and Cognition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Martinez, J. A. (1974). “Galileo on Primary and Secondary Qualities.” Journal for the History of the Behavioural Sciences 10: 160–169.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1904). A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, tr. N. I. Stone. International Publishers.Google Scholar
Masterman, M. (1970). “The Nature of a Paradigm.” In Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge, pp. 59–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mayoral de Lucas, J. V. (2009). “Intensions, Belief and Science: Kuhn’s Early Philosophical Outlook (1940–1945).” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 40: 175–184.Google Scholar
Mayoral de Lucas, J. V. (2017). Thomas S. Kuhn: La Búsqueda de la Estructura. Zaragoza, Spain: Prensas de la Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
McCann, E. (2011). “Locke’s Distinction Between Primary Primary Qualities and Secondary Primary Qualities.” In Nola, L. (ed.) Primary and Secondary Qualities: The Historical and Ongoing Debate, pp. 158–189. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McGuinness, B. (ed.) (1987). Unified Science. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. (1976). “The Fertility of Theory and the Unit for Appraisal in Science.” In Cohen, R. S., Feyerabend, P. K., and Wartofsky, M. W. (eds.), Essays in Memory of Imre Lakatos, pp. 395–432. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Melogno, P. (2019). “The Discovery-Justification Distinction and the New Historiography of Science: On Thomas Kuhn’s Thalheimer Lectures.” HOPOS 9, 1: 152–178.Google Scholar
Menand, L. (2001). The Metaphysical Club. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Mendeleev, D. I. (1891). Principles of Chemistry, vol. 1, 1st English ed., tr. Kamensky, G.. London: Longmans, Green.Google Scholar
Mill, J. S. (1859/1956). On Liberty. New York: The Liberal Arts Press.Google Scholar
Mladenović, B. (2007). “Muckraking in History.” Perspectives on Science 15, 3: 261–294.Google Scholar
Moore, G. E. (1925). “A Defence of Common Sense.” In J. H. Muirhead (ed.) Contemporary British Philosophy (2nd series).www.ditext.com/moore/common-sense.htmlGoogle Scholar
Moran, B. T. (1981). “German Prince-Practitioners: Aspects in the Development of Courtly Science, Technology, and Procedures in the Renaissance.” Technology and Culture 22, 2: 253–274.Google Scholar
Mormann, T. (2012). “A Place for Pragmatism in the Dynamics of Reason?” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43: 27–37.Google Scholar
Mormann, T. (2017). “Philipp Frank’s Austro-American Logical Empiricism.” HOPOS 7, 1: 56–87.Google Scholar
Morris, C. (1963). “Pragmatism and Logical Empiricism.” In Schilpp, P. (ed.), The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap, pp. 87–98. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Morris, E. (2018). The Ashtray: (Or the Man Who Denied Reality). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Morrison, R. G. (2014). “A Scholarly Intermediary Between the Ottoman Empire and Renaissance Europe.” Isis 105: 32–57.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morrison, R. G. (2016). Joseph ibn Nahmias’ The Light of the World: Astronomy in al-Andalus. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. (1961). The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Nash, L. (1957). “The Atomic-Molecular Theory.” In Conant, J. (ed.), Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, vol. 1, pp. 215–321. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nersessian, N. (2008). Creating Scientific Concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. (1932/1987). “Unified Science and Psychology.” In McGuinness, B. (ed.), Unified Science, pp. 1–23. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Neurath, O. (1937/1987). “The New Encyclopedia.” In McGuinness, B. (ed.), Unified Science, 132–141. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
Neurath, et al. (1929/1973). “The Scientific Conception of the World: The Vienna Circle.” In Empiricism and Sociology, pp. 299–318. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
New York Times (1945). “Truman Aid Asked for Magnuson Bill,” November 27.Google Scholar
New York Times (1953). “M’Carthy Charges ‘Mess’ at Harvard,” November 6.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1973). “Two Concepts of Intertheoretic Reduction.” Journal of Philosophy 70: 181–201.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1976). “Theory Generalization, Problem Reduction, and the Unity of Science.” In Michalos, A. and Cohen, R. S. (eds.) PSA 1974, pp. 31–74. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1980). “Can Scientific Constraints Be Violated Rationally?” In Nickles, T. (ed.), Scientific Discovery, Logic, and Rationality, pp. 285–315. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1981). “What Is a Problem That We May Solve It?” Synthese 47: 85–118.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (1994). “Enlightenment versus Romantic Models of Creativity in Science—and Beyond.” Creativity Research Journal 7, 3–4: 277–314.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2000). “Kuhnian Puzzle Solving and Schema Theory.” Philosophy of Science 67: S242–255.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
Nickles, T. (2005). “Problem Reduction: Some Thoughts.” In Festa, R., Aliseda, A., and Peijnenburg, J. (eds.), Cognitive Structures in Scientific Inquiry: Essays in Debate with Theo Kuipers, vol. 2, pp. 107–133. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2006). “Heuristic Appraisal: Context of Discovery or Justification?” In Schickore, J. and Steinle, F. (eds.), Revisiting Discovery and Justification: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives on the Context Distinction, pp. 159–182. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (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. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. (2017). “Scientific Revolutions.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. First published 5 March 2009. Heavily revised version, 28 November 2017. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-revolutions/Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1990). The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Norman, D. (1993). Things that Make Us Smart. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Nye, M. J. (1989). “Chemical Explanations and Physical Dynamics: Two Research Schools at the First Solvay Conferences, 1922–1928.” Annals of Science 46: 461–480.Google Scholar
Nye, M. J. (2012). “Thomas Kuhn, Case Histories, and Revolutions.” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences 42, 5: 557–561.Google Scholar
Oberheim, Eric (2016). “Rediscovering Einstein’s Legacy: How Einstein Anticipates Kuhn and Feyerabend on the Nature of Science.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 57: 17–26.Google Scholar
Oberheim, E. and Hoyningen-Huene, P. (2018). “The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories.” In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/incommensurability/Google Scholar
Omodeo, P. D. (2014). Copernicus in the Cultural Debates of the Renaissance: Reception, Legacy, Transformation. Leiden: Brill.Google Scholar
Palmer, D. (1976): “Boyle’s Corpuscular Hypothesis and Locke’s Primary-Secondary Quality Distinction.” Philosophical Studies 29: 181–189.Google Scholar
Paneth, F. A. (1962). “The Epistemological Status of the Chemical Concept of Element.” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 13: 1–14 and 144–160. (Reprinted in Foundations of Chemistry 5 (2003): 113–145.)Google Scholar
Patton, L. (2004). Hermann Cohen’s History and Philosophy of Science. Dissertation, McGill University.Google Scholar
Patton, L. (2017). “Kuhn, Pedagogy, and Practice.” In Mizrahi, M. (ed.), The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation? pp. 113–130. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Pearson, K. (1892). The Grammar of Science. London: Walter Scott.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. (1974). A Survey of the Almagest. Odense: Odense Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. (1978). “The Decline and Fall of the Theorica Planetarum.” In Rosen, E. et al. (eds.), Science and History: Studies in Honor of Edward Rosen, pp. 157–185. Warsaw: Ossolineum, Polish Academy of Sciences Press.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. (1981). “The Origins of the Theorica Planetarum.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 12: 113–123.Google Scholar
Pedersen, O. (1985). “In Quest of Sacrobosco.” Journal for the History of Astronomy 16: 175–220.Google Scholar
Piaget, J. (1928). Judgment and Reasoning in the Child, tr. M. Warden. New York: Harcourt, Brace.Google Scholar
Pietrzak, K. (1973). Letter to Thomas Kuhn, April 6, TSK Archives–MC240, box 10.Google Scholar
Pihlström, S. and Siitonen, A. (2005). “The Transcendental Method and (Post-)Empiricist Philosophy of Science.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 36, 1: 81–106.Google Scholar
Pingree, D. (1999). An Astronomer’s Progress. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 143, 1: 73–85.Google Scholar
Pinto de Oliveira, J. C. (2007). “Carnap, Kuhn, and Revisionism: On the Publication of Structure in Encyclopedia.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 38: 147–157.Google Scholar
Pinto de Oliveira, J. C (2012). “Kuhn and the Genesis of the ‘New Historiography of Science.’” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 43: 115–121.Google Scholar
Pinto de Oliveira, J. C (2014). “History of Science and History of Art: An Introduction to Kuhn’s Theory.” http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/11231Google Scholar
Pinto de Oliveira, J. C (2015). “Carnap, Kuhn, and the History of Science: A Reply to Thomas Uebel.” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 46: 215–223.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: 746–765.Google Scholar
Pinto de Oliveira, J. C (2020). “Kuhn, Condorcet, and Comte: On the Justification of the ‘Old’ Historiography of Science.” Perspectives on Science 28: 375–397.Google Scholar
Pinto de Oliveira, J. C. and Oliveira, A. J. (2018). “Kuhn, Sarton, and the History of Science.” In Pisano, R, et al. (eds.), Hypotheses and Perspectives within History and Philosophy of Science. Homage to Alexandre Koyré 1964–2014, pp. 277–293. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1946). Science, Faith and Society, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.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
Popper, K. (1959). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. London: Hutchinson. Translation of expanded version of Logic der Forschung, 1934.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1959/1968). The Logic of Scientific Discovery. New York: Harper & Row. (Originally published in German in 1934.)Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1953/1969). “Science: Conjectures and Refutations.” In: Conjectures and Refutations, pp 43–86. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1963). Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. (1970). “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 1965, Volume 4, pp. 51–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. et al. (1969/1976). The Positivist Dispute in German Sociology. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Post, H. (1971). “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: In Praise of Conservative Induction.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2: 213–255.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. (1964). From a Logical Point of View. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Raftopoulos, A. (2009). Cognition and Perception. How Do Psychology and Neural Science Inform Philosophy? Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ragep, F. J. (2001). “Tusi and Copernicus: The Earth’s Motion in Context.” Science in Context 14, 1/2: 145–163. DOI: 10.1017/0269889701000060Google Scholar
Ragep, F. J. (2007). “Shīrāzī: Quṭb al‐Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Masʿūd Muṣliḥ al‐Shīrāzī.” In T. Hockey et al. (eds.), The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers. Springer Reference, pp. 1054–1055. New York: Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
Ragep, F. J. (2008). “Hay’a.” In Selin, H. (ed.) Encyclopaedia of the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine in Non-Western Cultures. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1928/1957) The Philosophy of Space & Time. With introductory remarks by Rudolf Carnap. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1931). “Aims and Methods of Modern Philosophy of Nature.” In Modern Philosophy of Science, pp. 79–108. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1948) “Rationalism and Empiricism.” In Modern Philosophy of Science, pp. 135–150. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1951). The Rise of Scientific Philosophy. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. (1959) Modern Philosophy of Science: Selected Essays by Hans Reichenbach. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. A. (1994). “Planning Science: Otto Neurath and the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science.” British Journal for the History of Science 27: 153–175.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. A. (2012). “The Paranoid Style in American History of Science.” Theoria 27/3, 75: 323–342.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. A. (2016). “Aristotle in the Cold War: On the Origins of Thomas Kuhn’s The 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, G. A. (2019a). The Politics of Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn, James B. Conant, and the Cold War “Struggle for Men’s Minds.” Albany: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. A. (2019b). “What a Difference a Decade Makes: The Planning Debates and the Fate of the Unity of Science Movement.” In Cat, J. and Tuboly, A. T. (eds.), Neurath Reconsidered, pp. 385–411. 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
Rescher, N. (1982). The Coherence Theory of Truth. Washington: University Press of America.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
Rheticus, G. (2004). Narratio prima, tr. E. Rosen. In Rosen, E., Three Copernican Treatises. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Richards, R. and Daston, L. (eds.) (2016). Kuhn’s ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2002). “Narrating the History of Reason Itself.” Perspectives on Science 10 (3): 253–274.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2003). “Conceiving, Experiencing, and Conceiving Experiencing.” Topoi 22: 55–67.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2008). “Scientific Philosophy as a Topic for History of Science.” Isis 99, 1: 88–96.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2012). “The Structure of Philosophical History.” In Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 231–250. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. W. (2015). “From Troubled Marriage to Uneasy Colocation: Thomas Kuhn, Epistemological Revolutions, Romantic Narratives, and History and Philosophy of Science.” In Devlin, W. J., and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 39–50. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, vol. 311: Springer.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.). (2007) The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, V. (1957). “The Solar and Lunar Theory of Ibn ash-Shatir.” Isis, 48: 428–432.Google Scholar
Robinson, K. (2010). “Changing Paradigms.” Animated RSA Talk, available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHMUXFdBzik, (accessed October 5, 2019).Google Scholar
Roeslin, H. (2000). De opere Dei creationis seu de mundo hypotheses, ed. Granada, M.. Lecce: Conte.Google Scholar
Roller, D. and Roller, D. H. D. (1957). “The Development of the Concept of Electric Charge: Electricity from the Greeks to Coulomb.” In Conant, J. (ed.), Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, vol. 2, pp. 541–639. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rorty, R. (1982). Consequences of Pragmatism. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota.Google Scholar
Rosefeldt, T. (2007). “Dinge an sich und sekundäre Qualitäten.” In Stolzenberg, J. (ed.), Kant in der Gegenwart, pp. 167–209. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Rothman, A. (2017). The Pursuit of Harmony: Kepler on Cosmos, Confession, and Community. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. (1996). Engaging Science: How to Understand Its Practices Scientifically. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Rouse, J. (1998). “Kuhn and Scientific Practices.” Division I Faculty Publications, Wesleyan University. Paper 17. http://wesscholar.wesleyan.edu/div1facpubs/17Google Scholar
Rouse, J. (2013). “Recovering Thomas Kuhn.” Topoi 32, 1: 59–64.Google Scholar
Rowbottom, D. P. (2011). “What’s at the Bottom of Scientific Realism?” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42, 4: 625–628.Google Scholar
Rueger, A. (1996). “Risk and Diversification in Theory Choice.” Synthese 109: 263–280.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (2010). “Divergent Thinking, Creativity, and Ideation.” In Kaufman, J. C. and Sternberg, R. J. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, pp. 413–446. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. and Albert, R. S. (2010). “Creativity Research: A Historical View.” In Kaufman, J. C. and Sternberg, R. J. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity, pp. 3–19. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ruphy, S. (2011). “From Hacking’s Plurality of Styles of Scientific Reasoning to ‘Foliated’ Pluralism: A Philosophically Robust Form of Ontologico-Methodological Pluralism.” Philosophy of Science 78, 5: 1212–1222.Google Scholar
Ruphy, S. (2013/2016). Scientific Pluralism Reconsidered: A New Approach to the (Dis)Unity of Science. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Saliba, G. (1987). “The Role of Maragha in the Development of Islamic Astronomy: A Scientific Revolution before the Renaissance.” Revue de Synthese 108: 361–373. Reprinted in Saliba, G. 1994. A History of Arabic Astronomy, pp. 245–257. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Saliba, G. (1992). The Role of the Astrologer in Medieval Islamic Society. Bulletin d’études orientales. 44: 45–67.Google Scholar
Saliba, G. (1994). A History of Arabic Astronomy: Planetary Theories During the Golden Age of Islam. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Sankey, H. (1993). “Kuhn’s Changing Concept of Incommensurability.” British Journal of the Philosophy of Science. 44: 749–774.Google Scholar
Sankey, H. (1998). “Taxonomic Incommensurability” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 12, 1: 7–16.Google Scholar
Sankey, H. (2008). Scientific Realism and the Rationality of Science. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Sankey, H. (2012). “Methodological Incommensurability and Epistemic Relativism.” Topoi 32: 33–41.Google Scholar
Sankey, H. (forthcoming). “Kuhn, Coherentism and Perception.” In P. Melogno, H. Miguel and L. Giri (eds.), Perspectives On Kuhn.Google Scholar
Sayili, A. (1960). The Observatory in Islam and its Place in the General History of the Observatory. Ankara: Türk Tarīh Kurumu Basimevi.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. (2007). The Periodic Table: Its Story and Its Significance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. (2013). A Tale of Seven Elements, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. (2016). A Tale of Seven Scientists and a New Philosophy of Science, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. (2018). “Antonius van den Broek, Moseley and the Concept of Atomic Number.” In Edgell, R., MacLeod, R., Bruton, E. (eds.), For Science, King and Country – Henry Moseley, pp. 102–118. Uniform Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. (2019). The Periodic Table: A Very Short Introduction, 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. (2020). The Periodic Table, Its Story and Its Significance, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scerri, E. R. and Ghibaudi, E. (eds.) (2020). What is an Element, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1967). Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Scheffler, I. (1972). “Vision and Revolution: A Postscript on Kuhn.” Philosophy of Science 39: 366–374.Google Scholar
Schilpp, P. (ed.) (1963). The Philosophy of Rudolf Carnap. La Salle: Open Court.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. (1931/1959) “The Turning Point in Philosophy.” In Ayer, A. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 53–59. Chicago: Free Press.Google Scholar
Schofield, C. J. (1981). Tychonic and Semi-Tychonic World Systems. New York: Arno Press.Google Scholar
Schopenhauer, A. (1851/2014): “Sketch of a History of the Doctrine of the Ideal and the Real.” In Roehr, S. and Janaway, C. (eds.). Schopenhauer: Parerga and Paralipomena. Short Philosophical Essays, vol. 1, pp. 7–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schrecker, E. (1986). No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Seigel, K. (1951). “College Freedoms Being Stifled by Students’ Fear of Red Label.” New York Times, May 10.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (1967). Science and Metaphysics: Variations on Kantian Themes, The John Locke Lectures for 1965–66. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Sellars, W. (2007). In the Space of Reasons. Selected Essays of Wilfrid Sellars, ed. Sharp, K. and Brandom, R. B.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Shan, Y. (2018). “Kuhn’s ‘Wrong Turning’ and Legacy Today.” Synthese online, 28 February.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. (1964). “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” Philosophical Review 7: 383–394.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, S. (1990). “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge.” Harvard Science Review, Winter issue: 18–25.Google Scholar
Sigurðsson, 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. Proceedings 8, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. Berlin: Edition Open Access.Google Scholar
Smith, A. D. (1999). “Primary-Secondary Distinction.” In Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, pp. 684–687 London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stone, A. (2018). “Lewis and Cavell on Ordinary Language and Academic Philosophy.” Philosophical Inquiries 6, 1: 75–96.Google Scholar
Strauss, L. (1954). “Remarks Prepared by Lewis L. Strauss, Chairman, United States Atomic Energy Commission, for Delivery at the Founder’s Day Dinner, National Association of Science Writers,” September 16, (available at www.nrc.gov).Google Scholar
Strawson, P. (1966/2018). The Bounds of Sense. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Strong, R. (1973). Splendor at Court: Renaissance Spectacle and the Theater of Power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Suppe, F. (ed.) (1974). The Structure of Scientific Theories. Chicago: The University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, N. M. (1973). “The Derivation and First Draft of Copernicus’s Planetary Theory.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 117: 423–512.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, N. M. (2000). “Copernicus, Nicholas (1473–1543).” In Applebaum, W. (ed.), Encyclopedia of the Scientific Revolution from Copernicus to Newton, pp. 162–168. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Swerdlow, N. M. and Neugebauer, O. (1984). Mathematical Astronomy in Copernicus’s De Revolutionibus. 2 vols. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
THE. (2009). “Most Cited Authors of Books in the Humanities, 2007.” Times Higher Education, 26 March 2009. www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=405956, (accessed February 24, 2020).Google Scholar
Thorndike, L. (1949). The Sphere of Sacrobosco and Its Commentators. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Timmins, A. (2019). “Between History and Philosophy of Science.” HOPOS 9, 2: 371–387.Google Scholar
Toomer, G. J. (1998). Ptolemy’s Almagest. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1970). “Does the Distinction Between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?” 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. 39–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1972). Human Understanding: The Collective Use and Evolution of Concepts, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tredwell, K. A. and Barker, P. (2004). “Copernicus’ First Friends: Physical Copernicanism from 1543 to 1610.” Acta Philosophica/Filozofski vestnik 25, 2: 143–166.Google Scholar
Tremaine, S. (2011). “John Norris Bahcall: 1934–2005.” Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences. National Academy of Science, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Uebel, T. (2012). “De-synthesizing the Relativized A Priori.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 43: 7–17.Google Scholar
Ursus, N. R. (1588). Nicolai Raymari Ursi dithmarsi Fundamentum astronomicum. Strasbourg: Bernhardus Iobin.Google Scholar
Ursus, N. R. (2012). Astronomischer Grund: Fundamentum Astronomicum 1588 des Nicolaus Reimers Ursus, ed. and tr. Thierfelder, C. and Launert, D.. Frankfurt: Deutsch.Google Scholar
Van Dalen, B. (2007). “Ulugh Beg: Muḥammad Ṭaraghāy ibn Shāhrukh ibn Tīmūr.” In Hockey, T. et al. (eds.), The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers, pp. 1157–1159. Springer Reference. New York: Springer, 2007.Google Scholar
Vesel, M. (2014). Copernicus: Platonist Astronomer-Philosopher: Cosmic Order, the Movement of the Earth, and the Scientific Revolution. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Vesey, G. N. A. (1956). “Seeing and Seeing As.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 56: 109–124.Google Scholar
Vision, G. (1982). “Primary and Secondary Qualities: An Essay in Epistemology.” Erkenntnis 17: 135–169.Google Scholar
Vogt, T. (2017). “Book Review of Eric Scerri: A Tale of Seven Scientists and a New Philosophy of Science.” Hyle, International Review for the Philosophy of Chemistry 23: 107–109.Google Scholar
Von Hoffman, N. (1988). Citizen Cohn. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Voss, D. L. (1985). Ibn al-Haytham’s Doubts Concerning Ptolemy: A Translation and Commentary. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. (1975). “The Melanchthon Circle, Rheticus, and the Wittenberg Interpretation of the Copernican Theory.” Isis 66, 2: 164–193.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. (1980). “The Astronomer’s Role in the Sixteenth Century: A Preliminary Study.” History of Science 18, 2: 105–147.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. (2011). The Copernican Question: Prognostication, Skepticism and Celestial Order. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Westman, R. S. (2017). Copernicus and the Astrologers: Dibner Library Lecture, December 12, 2013. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Libraries.Google Scholar
Wilson, M. (2006). Wandering Significance: An Essay on Conceptual Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wilson, T. (2004). Strangers to Ourselves: Discovering the Adaptive Unconscious. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wimsatt, W. C. (2007). Re-Engineering Philosophy for Limited Beings. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Winsberg, E. (2010). Science in the Age of Computer Simulation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953/2009). Philosophical Investigations, tr. G. E. M. Anscombe, P. M. S. Hacker and J. Schulte, 4th ed. Blackwell, Oxford. Abbreviated as PI paragraph for what used to be Part I in previous editions and PPF (Philosophy of Psychology – A Fragment) paragraph for what used to be Part II.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1958). The Blue and Brown Books. New York: Harper Torchbooks.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1967/1970). Zettel. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1988). Wittgenstein’s Lectures on Philosophical Psychology 1946–1947, ed. Geach, P. T.. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1982/1990). Last Writings on the Philosophy of Psychology, vol, I, eds. Anscombe, G. E. M., von Wright, G. H., Nyman, H.. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (2005). The Big Typescript. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar
WorldCat. (2020). “Du Chevreul, Jacques.” http://worldcat.org/identities/lccn-no2017098045/Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. (2011). Kuhn’s Evolutionary Social Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. (2015). “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. B. (2016). “The Influence of James B. Conant on Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions.” HOPOS 6, 1: 1–23.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. (2018a). “The Atomic Number Revolution in Chemistry: A Kuhnian Analysis, Foundations of Chemistry 20: 209–217.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. (2018b). “Thomas Kuhn and the T. S. Kuhn Archives at MIT.” OUPblog (May 27, 2018). https://blog.oup.com/2018/05/thomas-kuhn-archives-mit/, (accessed March 4, 2020).Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. (2019). “Kuhn, the History of Chemistry, and the Philosophy of Science.” HOPOS 9, 1: 75–92.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. and Andersen, L. E. (2019). “Reporting the Discovery of New Chemical Elements: Working in Different Worlds, Only 25 Years Apart.” Foundations of Chemistry. (forthcoming).Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. and Bornmann, L. (2015). “Philosophy of Science Viewed through the Lense of ‘Referenced Publication Years Spectroscopy’ (RPYS).” Scientometrics 102: 1987–1996.Google Scholar
Yates, F. C. (1947). The French Academies of the Sixteenth Century. Warburg Institute Studies, v. 15. London: Warburg Institute, University of London.Google Scholar
Zhang, Z. X. (2008). “Research on the Origin and Spread of the Star Catalogue Xiyang Xinfa Lishu.” Journal of Dialectics of Nature 30, 2: 81–86.Google Scholar
Zhang, F. Kearns, S. L., Orr, P. J., Benton, M. J., Zhou, Z., Johnson, D., Xu, X. , and Wang, X. (2010). “Fossilized Melanosomes and the Colour of Cretaceous Dinosaurs and Birds.” Nature 463: 1075.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by K. Brad Wray, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
  • Book: Interpreting Kuhn
  • Online publication: 25 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108653206.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by K. Brad Wray, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
  • Book: Interpreting Kuhn
  • Online publication: 25 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108653206.014
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Bibliography
  • Edited by K. Brad Wray, Aarhus Universitet, Denmark
  • Book: Interpreting Kuhn
  • Online publication: 25 June 2021
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108653206.014
Available formats
×