对愤怒的新回应及扩大对话的尝试

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Eric R. Scerri
{"title":"对愤怒的新回应及扩大对话的尝试","authors":"Eric R. Scerri","doi":"10.36253/substantia-1806","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article begins by examining a recent claim by Brad Wray that the discovery of atomic number and isotopy constitutes a scientific revolution in the sense of the later writings of Thomas Kuhn.  I argue that although Kuhn’s criteria may apply to the change from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican model of the universe, they do not apply in the above chemical or atomic case.  I also examine the wider issue of Kuhn’s turning away from internal scientific issues to a consideration of lexical issues.  I conclude, as others have done before me, that this may have been a wrong turn in view of the emphasis being placed on questions of sense rather than reference.","PeriodicalId":32750,"journal":{"name":"Substantia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A New Response to Wray and an Attempt to Widen the Conversation\",\"authors\":\"Eric R. Scerri\",\"doi\":\"10.36253/substantia-1806\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article begins by examining a recent claim by Brad Wray that the discovery of atomic number and isotopy constitutes a scientific revolution in the sense of the later writings of Thomas Kuhn.  I argue that although Kuhn’s criteria may apply to the change from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican model of the universe, they do not apply in the above chemical or atomic case.  I also examine the wider issue of Kuhn’s turning away from internal scientific issues to a consideration of lexical issues.  I conclude, as others have done before me, that this may have been a wrong turn in view of the emphasis being placed on questions of sense rather than reference.\",\"PeriodicalId\":32750,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Substantia\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Substantia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36253/substantia-1806\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substantia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36253/substantia-1806","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

这篇文章首先考察了Brad Wray最近的一项主张,即原子序数和同位素的发现构成了托马斯·库恩后期著作意义上的一场科学革命。我认为,尽管库恩的标准可能适用于从托勒密到哥白尼的宇宙模型的变化,但它们不适用于上述化学或原子的情况。我还研究了库恩从内部科学问题转向词汇问题的更广泛问题。我的结论是,正如我之前的其他人所做的那样,鉴于强调的是意义问题而不是参考问题,这可能是一个错误的转变。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A New Response to Wray and an Attempt to Widen the Conversation
This article begins by examining a recent claim by Brad Wray that the discovery of atomic number and isotopy constitutes a scientific revolution in the sense of the later writings of Thomas Kuhn.  I argue that although Kuhn’s criteria may apply to the change from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican model of the universe, they do not apply in the above chemical or atomic case.  I also examine the wider issue of Kuhn’s turning away from internal scientific issues to a consideration of lexical issues.  I conclude, as others have done before me, that this may have been a wrong turn in view of the emphasis being placed on questions of sense rather than reference.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Substantia
Substantia Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
审稿时长
2 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信