How Can a Taxonomy of Stances Help Clarify Classical Debates on Scientific Change?
AbstractIn this paper, we demonstrate how a systematic taxonomy of stances can help elucidate two classic debates of the historical turn—the Lakatos–Feyerabend debate concerning theory rejection and the Feyerabend–Kuhn debate about pluralism during normal science. We contend that Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos were often talking at cross-purposes due to the lack of an agreed upon taxonomy of stances. Specifically, we provide three distinct stances that scientists take towards theories: acceptance of a theory as the best available description of its domain, use of a theory in practical applications, and pursuit (elaboration) of a theory. We argue that in the Lakatos–Feyerabend debate, Lakatos was concerned with acceptance whereas Feyerabend was mainly concerned with pursuit. Additionally, we show how Feyerabend and Kuhn’s debate on the role of pluralism/monism in normal science involved a crucial conflation of all three stances. Finally, we outline a few general lessons concerning the process of scientific change. View Full-Text
Scifeed alert for new publicationsNever miss any articles matching your research from any publisher
- Get alerts for new papers matching your research
- Find out the new papers from selected authors
- Updated daily for 49'000+ journals and 6000+ publishers
- Define your Scifeed now
Barseghyan, H.; Shaw, J. How Can a Taxonomy of Stances Help Clarify Classical Debates on Scientific Change? Philosophies 2017, 2, 24.
Barseghyan H, Shaw J. How Can a Taxonomy of Stances Help Clarify Classical Debates on Scientific Change? Philosophies. 2017; 2(4):24.Chicago/Turabian Style
Barseghyan, Hakob; Shaw, Jamie. 2017. "How Can a Taxonomy of Stances Help Clarify Classical Debates on Scientific Change?" Philosophies 2, no. 4: 24.
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.