Book contents
- Kuhn’s Intellectual Path
- Kuhn’s Intellectual Path
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Groundwork for Structure: Harvard 1947 to 1955
- Part II The Unexpected Uptake: Kuhn and the Social Sciences
- Part III Kuhn and the History of Science
- Part IV Kuhn’s Philosophical Legacy
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2022
Book contents
- Kuhn’s Intellectual Path
- Kuhn’s Intellectual Path
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Acknowledgments
- Introduction
- Part I The Groundwork for Structure: Harvard 1947 to 1955
- Part II The Unexpected Uptake: Kuhn and the Social Sciences
- Part III Kuhn and the History of Science
- Part IV Kuhn’s Philosophical Legacy
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
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.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Kuhn's Intellectual PathCharting <I>The Structure of Scientific Revolutions</I>, pp. 206 - 228Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2021
References
Bibliography
Abrams, S. 1995a. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated 13 March 1995,” in the TSK Archives. Box 21: Folder 1, Correspondence, Abrams, Susan.Google Scholar
Abrams, S. 1995b. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated 20 June 1995,” in the TSK Archives. Box 21: Folder 1, Correspondence, Abrams, Susan.Google Scholar
Akers, R. L. 1992. “Linking Sociology and Its Specialties: The Case of Criminology,” Social Forces 71:1, 1–16.Google Scholar
Almond, G. A. 1966. “Political Theory and Political Science,” American Political Science Review LX:4, 869–879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, Hanne. 2001. “Kuhn, Conant, and Everything – A Full or Fuller Account,” Philosophy of Science 68:2, 258–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabatzis, Theodore. 2001. “Can a Historian of Science Be a Scientific Realist?,” Philosophy of Science 68:3 (Supplement: Proceedings of the 2000 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers), S531–S541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayer, A. J. 1959. “Editor’s Introduction,” in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 3–28. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Babich, Babette E. 2003. “From Fleck’s Denkstil to Kuhn’s Paradigms: Conceptual Schemes and Incommensurability,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17:1, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltes, P. B., and Nesselroade, J. R.. 1984. “Paradigm Lost and Paradigm Regained: Critique of Dannefer’s Portrayal of Life-Span Developmental Psychology,” American Sociological Review 49:6, 841–847.Google Scholar
Barber, B. 1987. “The Emergence and Maturation of the Sociology of Science,” Science & Technology Studies 5:3/4, 129–133.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. 1974. Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Barnes, B. 1982. T. S. Kuhn and Social Science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, B., and Bloor, D.. 1982. “Relativism, Rationalism and the Sociology of Knowledge,” in Hollis, M. and Lukes, S. (eds.), Rationality and Relativism, pp. 21–47. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Barnes, Barry, Bloor, David and Henry, John. 1996. Scientific Knowledge: A Sociological Analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bartlett, P. D. 1983. “James Bryant Conant, 1893–1978: A Biographical Memoir by Paul D. Bartlett,” in National Academy of Sciences, Biographical Memoir, pp. 89–124. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
Bensaude-Vincent, Bernadette. 2005. “Chemistry in the French Tradition of Philosophy of Science: Duhem, Meyerson, Metzger and Bachelard,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36: 627–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biddle, Justin. 2011. “Putting Pragmatism to Work in the Cold War: Science, Technology, and Politics in the Writings of James B. Conant,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 42: 522–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, A. 2015. “Kuhn and the Historiography of Science,” in Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 23–38. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Birner, J. 2018. “Karl Popper’s The Poverty of Historicism After 60 Years,” Metascience 27:2, 183–193.Google Scholar
Blaug, M. 1976. “Kuhn Versus Lakatos, or Paradigms Versus Research Programmes in the History of Economics,” in Latsis, S. J. (ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics, pp. 149–180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bleaney, B. 1982. “John Hasbrouck Van Vleck. 13 March 1899. 27 October 1980,” Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society 28 (November), 627–665.Google Scholar
Bloor, D. 1975. “Course Bibliography: A Philosophical Approach to Science,” Social Studies of Science 5: 507–517.Google Scholar
Blumenthal, Geoffrey. 2013. “Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution: A Reassessment,”Foundations of Chemistry 15: 93–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bohr, Niels. 1948. “On the Notions of Causality and Complementarity,” Dialectica 2:2–3, 312–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornmann, L., Wray, K. B. and Haunschild, R.. 2020. “Citation Concept Analysis (CAA) – A New Form of Citation Analysis Revealing the Usefulness of Concepts for Other Researchers Illustrated by Exemplary Case Studies Including Classic Books by Thomas S. Kuhn and Karl R. Popper,” Scientometrics 122:2, 1051–1074.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard N. 1985. “Lex Orandi est Lex Credendi,” in Churchland, Paul M. and Hooker, Clifford A. (eds.), Images of Science: Essays on Realism and Empiricism, with a Reply from Bas C. van Fraassen, pp. 3–34. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brasch, Frederick E. 1915, November 26. “The Teaching of the History of Science,” Science 42:1091, 746–760.Google Scholar
Breiger, R. L. 2005. “White, Harrison,” in Encyclopedia of Social Theory, pp. 885–886. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.Google Scholar
Brorson, Stig, and Andersen, Hanne. 2001. “Stabilizing and Changing Phenomenal Worlds: Ludwik Fleck and Thomas Kuhn on Scientific Literature,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 32:1, 109–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brush, S. G. 2000. “Thomas Kuhn as Historian of Science,” Science & Education 9, 39–58.Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. 1977. “More than a Marriage of Convenience: On the Inextricability of History and Philosophy of Science,” Philosophy of Science 44:1, 1–42.Google Scholar
Burian, R. M. 2001. “The Dilemma of Case Studies Resolved: The Virtues of Using Case Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science,” Perspectives on Science 9:4, 383–404.Google Scholar
Burman, J. T. 2020. “On Kuhn’s Case, and Piaget’s: A Critical Two-Sited Hauntology (Or, on Impact Without Reference),” History of the Human Science 33:3–4, 129–159.Google Scholar
Cammack, P. 1990. “A Critical Assessment of the New Elite Paradigm,” American Sociological Review 55, 415–420.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1932/1959. “The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language,” in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 60–81. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Carnap, Rudolf. 1956. “The Methodological Status of Theoretical Concepts,” in Feigl, Herbert and Scriven (eds.), Michael, The Foundations of Science and the Concepts of Psychology and Psychoanalysis, pp. 38–75. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Cavell, S. 2010. Little Did I Know: Excerpts from Memory. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Cedarbaum, Daniel G. 1983. “Paradigms,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 14:3, 173–213.Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok. 2015. “The Chemical Revolution Revisited,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 49, 91–98.Google Scholar
Chang, Hasok, and Cartwright, Nancy. 2014. “Measurement,” in Curd, Martin and Psillos, Stathis (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Science, 2nd ed., pp. 411–419. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Coats, A. W. 1969. “Is There a ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ in Economics?,” Kyklos: International Zeitschrift für Sozialwissenschaften 22:2, 289–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, I. Bernard. 1985. Revolution in Science. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, J. R., and Zuckerman, H.. 1975. “The Emergence of a Scientific Specialty: The Self-Exemplifying Case of the Sociology of Science,” in Coser, L. A. (ed.), The Idea of Social Structure: Papers in Honor of Robert K. Merton, pp. 139–174. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Google Scholar
Cole, Stephen. 1992. Making Science: Between Nature and Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Collodel, M. 2016. “Was Feyerabend a Popperian? Methodological Issues in the History of the Philosophy of Science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 57: 27–56.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1946/1947. “Preface,” in James B. Conant (ed.) On Understanding Science: An Historical Approach. pp. xi–xv. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1947. On Understanding Science: An Historical Approach. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1950/1965. “Foreword,” in Conant, James B. (ed.), Robert Boyle’s Experiments in Pneumatics: Case 1 in the Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1953. Modern Science and Modern Man. Garden City, NY: A Doubleday Anchor Book.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. (ed.) 1955. The Overthrow of the Phlogiston Theory: The Chemical Revolution of 1775–1789. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1957. “Foreword,” in Kuhn, T. S. (ed.), The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, pp. xiii–xviii. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1961. “Letter from James B. Conant to Kuhn, June 5, 1961,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1962. “Letter from James B. Conant to Kuhn, December 19, 1962,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Correspondence C-D; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar
Conant, James B. 1970. My Several Lives: Memoirs of a Social Inventor. New York, NY: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Conant, James and Haugeland, John. 2000. “Editors’ Introduction,” in James Conant and John Haugeland (eds.), Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, pp. 1–9. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conant, Jennet. 2017. Man of the Hour: James B. Conant, Warrior Scientist. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Creath, R. 2007. “Vienna, the City of Quine’s Dreams,” in Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, pp. 332–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Curd, , Martin, J. A. Cover and Pincock, Christopher. 2013. Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues, 2nd ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
D’Agostino, F. 2005. “Kuhn’s Risk-Spreading Argument and the Organization of Scientific Communities,” Episteme 1:3, 201–209.Google Scholar
Daston, L. 2016. “History of Science without Structure,” in Richards, R. J. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Scientific Classic, pp. 115–132. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald. 1973–1974. “On the Very Idea of a Conceptual Scheme,” Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 47: 5–24.Google Scholar
Devlin, William J., and Bokulich, Alisa (eds.). 2015. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Dicken, Paul. 2016. A Critical Introduction to Scientific Realism. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar
DiSalle, R. 2002. “Reconsidering Kant, Friedman, Logical Positivism, and the Exact Sciences,” Philosophy of Science 69: 191–211.Google Scholar
Doppelt, Gerald. 1978. “Kuhn’s Epistemological Relativism: An Interpretation and Defense,” Inquiry 21: 33–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doppelt, Gerald. 2013. “Explaining the Success of Science: Kuhn and Scientific Realists,” Topoi 32: 43–51.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1893/1996. “The English School and Physical Theories,” in Duhem, Pierre, Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science, translated and ed. by Ariew, Roger and Barker, Peter, pp. 50–74. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Duhem, Pierre. 1915/1996. “Some Reflections in German Science,” in Duhem, Pierre, Essays in the History and Philosophy of Science, translated and ed. by Ariew, Roger and Barker, Peter, pp. 251–276. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Dupree, A. H., and Kuhn, T. S.. 1958. “Teaching the History of Science,” Isis 49:2, 172–173.Google Scholar
Durkheim, É. 1930/1951. Suicide: A Study in Sociology, translated by Spaulding, J. A. and Simpson, G.. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Easlea, B. 1973. “Bibliography: An Introduction to the History and Social Studies of Science: A Seminar Course for First-Year Science Students,” Science Studies 3: 185–209.Google Scholar
Edge, David. 1967. “Letter to Professor Kuhn – Dated 13 November 1967,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 12: Social Studies of Science, 1970–1976.Google Scholar
Edge, David. 1969. “Letter to Professor Kuhn – Dated 4th December 1969,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 12: Social Studies of Science, 1970–1976.Google Scholar
Eckberg, D. L., and Hill, L., Jr. 1979. “The Paradigm Concept and Sociology: A Critical Review,” American Sociological Review 44: 925–937.Google Scholar
Edmonds, D. 2020. The Murder of Professor Schlick: The Rise and Fall of the Vienna Circle. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Edmonds, D., and Eidinow, J.. 2002. Wittgenstein’s Poker: The Story of a Ten-Minute Argument Between Two Great Philosophers. New York, NY: Ecco.Google Scholar
Farley, John, and Geison, Gerald L.. 1974. “Science, Politics and Spontaneous Generation in Nineteenth-Century France: The Pasteur–Pouchet Debate,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine 48: 161–198.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1958/1981. “An Attempt at a Realistic Interpretation of Experience,” in Feyerabend, Paul K., Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, pp. 17–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1960/1981. “On the Interpretation of Scientific Theories,” in Feyerabend, Paul K., Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, pp. 37–43. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, Paul K. 1964/1981. “Realism and Instrumentalism: Comments on the Logic of Factual Support,” in Feyerabend, Paul K., Realism, Rationalism and Scientific Method: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, pp. 176–202. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1968/1999. “Letter to Imre Lakatos, Saturday, end of March 1968,” in Lakatos, I. and Feyerabend, P., For and Against Method: Including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos-Feyerabend Correspondence, edited and with an introduction by Motterlini, M., pp. 141–142. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1969/1999. “Letter to Imre Lakatos, 17 October 1969,” in Lakatos, I. and Feyerabend, P., For and Against Method: Including Lakatos’s Lectures on Scientific Method and the Lakatos–Feyerabend Correspondence, edited and with an introduction by Motterlini, M., pp. 180–181. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Feyerabend, P. 1970. “Consolations for the Specialist,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, volume 4, pp. 197–230. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fleck, L. 1935/1979. Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, edited by Trenn, T. J. and Merton, R. K., translated by Bradley, F. and Trenn, T. J., with a Foreword by Kuhn, T. S.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Forbes, Curtis. 2017. “A Pragmatic Existentialist Approach to the Scientific Realism Debate,” Synthese 194:9, 3327–3346.Google Scholar
Forrester, John. 2007. “On Kuhn’s Case: Psychoanalysis and the Paradigm,” Critical Inquiry 33: 782–819.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frank, Philipp. 1949/1961. “Introduction: Historical Background,” in Frank (ed.), Philipp, Modern Science and Its Philosophy, pp. 13–61. New York, NY: Collier Books.Google Scholar
Frank, Philipp. 1952. “Letter to Professor Tom Kuhn – December 2, 1952,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication.Google Scholar
Franklin, Allan. 1986. The Neglect of Experiment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
French, R., and Gross, M.. 1973. “A Survey of North American Graduate Students in the History of Science 1970–71,” Science Studies 3: 161–171.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 2001. Dynamics of Reason: The 1999 Kant Lectures at Stanford University. Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information Publications.Google Scholar
Friedman, M. 2003. “Kuhn and Logical Empiricism,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 19–44. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, S. 2000. Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, Steve. 2004. Kuhn vs. Popper: The Struggle for the Soul of Science. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 2016. “Practice All the Way Down,” in Richards, R. J. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Scientific Classic, pp. 42–69. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Galison, P. 1981. “Kuhn and the Quantum Controversy,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 32:1, 71–85.Google Scholar
Gattei, G. 2008. Thomas Kuhn’s “Linguistic Turn” and the Legacy of Logical Positivism: Incommensurability, Rationality and the Search for Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giere, R. N. 1973. “History and Philosophy of Science: Intimate Relationship or Marriage of Convenience?,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 24:3, 282–297.Google Scholar
Giere, R. 1997. “Kuhn’s Legacy for North American Philosophy of Science,” Social Studies of Science, 27: 496–498.Google Scholar
Gillispie, C. C. 1962. “The Nature of Science: Normal Science Is Succeeded by a Creative Phase of Revolution Out of Which New Concepts Emerge,” Science, 138 (December 14, 1962), 1251–1253.Google Scholar
Gillispie, C. C. 1993. “Letter to Tom – Dated 31 January 1993,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 21: Folder 35, Correspondence, Gillispie, Charles.Google Scholar
Godfrey-Smith, P. 2003. Theory and Reality: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Gordon, Peter E. 2012. “Agonies of the Real: Anti-Realism from Kuhn to Foucault,” Modern Intellectual History 9:1, 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandy, R. E. 2003. “Kuhn’s World Changes,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 246–260. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Grene, Marjorie. 1963. “Letter from Marjorie Grene to Kuhn, September 25, 1963,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 9, Correspondence E-G; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar
Gutting, G. 2003. “Thomas Kuhn and French Philosophy of Science,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 45–64. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1981. “Do We See with a Microscope?,” Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 62:4, 305–322.Google Scholar
Hacking, Ian. 1983. Representing and Intervening: Introductory Topics in the Philosophy of Natural Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 1999. The Social Construction of What? Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 2012. “Introductory Essay,” in Kuhn, T. S., Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed., vii–xxxvii. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. 2016. “Paradigms,” in Richards, Robert J. and Daston, Lorraine (eds.),Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic, 96–112. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hacohen, Malachi H. 2002. Karl Popper – The Formative Years, 1902–1945: Politics and Philosophy in Interwar Vienna. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard J. 1970. “Kuhn and the Copernican Revolution,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 21:2, 196–197.Google Scholar
Hallberg, M. 2017. “Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science: Mary Hesse (1924–2016),” Journal for General Philosophy of Science 48: 161–171.Google Scholar
Hamlin, Christopher. 2016. “The Pedagogical Roots of the History of Science: Revisiting the Vision of James Bryant Conant.” Isis 107:2, 282–308.Google Scholar
Hayek, F. 1964. “The Theory of Complex Phenomena,” in Bunge, M. A. (ed.), The Critical Approach to Science and Philosophy, pp. 332–349. Glencoe, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. 1968. “Quantum Historiography and the Archive for History of Quantum Physics,” History of Science 7: 90–111.Google Scholar
Heilbron, J. L. 1998. “Thomas Samuel Kuhn, 18 July 1922 – 17 June 1996.” Isis 89:3, 505–515.Google Scholar
Herring, Pendleton. 1959. “Letter to Professor Thomas Kuhn – Dated December 7, 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 23: Lecture/Meetings: Berkeley Social Science Colloquium, 1956.Google Scholar
Hershberg, James G. 1993. James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age. New York, NY: Alfred A. Knopf.Google Scholar
Herschbach, D. R. 2014. “Theodore William Richards: Apostle of Atomic Weights and Nobel Prize Winner in 1914,” Angewandte Chemie 53: 13,982–13,987.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary 1963. “Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn,” Isis 54:2, 286–287.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1976. “Truth and the Growth of Scientific Knowledge,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, pp. 261–280.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 1980. Revolutions and Reconstructions in the Philosophy of Science. Brighton: The Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. 1982a. “Comments on the Papers of David Bloor and Steven Lukes,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 4: 325–331.Google Scholar
Hesse, M. 1982b. “Comment on Kuhn’s ‘Commensurability, Comparability, and Communicability,’” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982, Vol. Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1982), pp. 704–711.Google Scholar
Hesse, Mary. 2002. Hesse, Mary (1924–2016), Text of speech made on 21/6/02. Held at Cambridge, Whipple Library. Hesse Papers, MH2.22.Google Scholar
Howard, D. 2004. “Who Invented the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’? A Study in Mythology,” Philosophy of Science 71:5 (Proceedings of the 2002 Biennial Meeting of the PSA, Part II: Symposia Papers), 669–682.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1989/1993. Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science, translated by A. T. Levine, with a foreword by Kuhn, T. S.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. 1992. “The Interrelations between the Philosophy, History and Sociology of Science in Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Development,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 43, 487–501.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2005. “Three Biographies: Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Incommensurability,” in Harris (ed.), R. A, Rhetoric and Incommensurability, pp. 150–175. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2006. “More Letters from Paul Feyerabend to Thomas S. Kuhn on Proto-Structure,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 37, 610–632.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, Paul. 2008. “Thomas Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution,” Foundations of Chemistry 10: 101–105.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P. 2015. “Kuhn’s Development Before and After Structure,” in Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, Vol. 311, pp. 185–195. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Hoyningen-Huene, P., and Sankey, H. (eds.). 2001. Incommensurability and Related Matters, Vol. 216, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.Google Scholar
Hufbauer, Karl. 2012. “From Student of Physics to Historian of Science: T. S. Kuhn’s Education and Early Career, 1940–1958,” Physics in Perspective, 14: 421–470.Google Scholar
Irzik, G. 2012. “Kuhn and Logical Positivism: Gaps, Silences, and Tactics of SSR,” in Kindi, V. and Arabatzis, T. (eds.), Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited, pp. 15–40. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Isaac, Joel. 2012. Working Knowledge: Making the Human Sciences from Parsons to Kuhn. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Struan. 2007. “Michael Polanyi and Thomas Kuhn: Priority and Credit,” Tradition and Discovery, 33:2, 25–36.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Struan. 2010. “J. B. Conant’s Other Assistant: Science as Depicted by Leonard K. Nash, Including Reference to Thomas Kuhn,” Perspectives on Science 18:3, 328–351.Google Scholar
James, William. 1907/1949. Pragmatism: A New Name for Some Old Ways of Thinking, Together with Four Related Essays Selected from The Meaning of Truth. New York, NY: Longmans Green and Co.Google Scholar
Joergensen, Joergen. 1970. “The Development of Logical Empiricism,” in Neurath, Otto, Carnap, Rudolf and Morris, Charles (eds.), Foundations of the Unity of Science: Toward an International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, Volume 2, pp. 845–946. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2003. “Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics,” American Economic Review 93:5, 1449–1475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, D. 2016. “Thomas Kuhn and the Psychology of Scientific Revolutions,” in Richards, R. J. and Daston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Scientific Classic, pp. 71–95. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kaiserlian, P. 1986. “Letter to Professor Thomas Kuhn – June 12, 1986,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication.Google Scholar
Kevles, D. J. 1977. “The National Science Foundation and the Debate over Postwar Research Policy, 1942–1945: A Political Reinterpretation of Science – The Endless Frontier,” Isis 68:1, 4–26.Google Scholar
Kindi, Vasso. 2017. “Wittgenstein and Philosophy of Science,” in Glock, Hans-Johann and Hyman, John (eds.), A Companion to Wittgenstein, pp. 587–602. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kindi, Vasso, and Arabatzis, Theodore (eds.). 2012. Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kourany, Janet A. 1998. Scientific Knowledge: Basic Issues in the Philosophy of Science, 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1949. “Notebook” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 1: Folder 7, Notes and Ideas, 1949; Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Institute Archives and Special Collections.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1951a. “Newton’s ‘31st Query’ and the Degradation of Gold.” Isis, 42:4, 296–298.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1951b. “The Quest for Physical Theory,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 3, Lectures, Lowell Institute, 1950–51.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1952. “Robert Boyle and Structural Chemistry in the Seventeenth Century.” Isis 43:1, 12–36.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1953. “Letter to Charles Morris – Dated July 31, 1953,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) – Correspondence, pre-publication, 1952–1962.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. S. 1956/1957. “Preface,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, pp. vii–x. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. S. 1957. The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1958. “Letter to Professor R. K. Merton – Dated September 16, 1958,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 22: Correspondence: Merton, Robert K.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1959a. “Letter to Ralph W. Tyler, Director – Dated July 31, 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 14: Folder 15, Center for Advanced Study, 1959.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1959b. “Letter to Dr. Pendleton Herring – Dated 21 December 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 14: Folder 15, Center for Advanced Study, 1959.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1959c. “Letter to Professor Robert K. Merton – Dated 7 December 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 23: Lecture/Meetings: Berkeley Social Science Colloquium, 1956.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1959/1977. “Energy Conservation as an Example of Simultaneous Discovery,” in Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 66–104. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1961a. “Letter to Mr. Carroll G. Bowen – Dated 18 June 1961,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1961b. “Letter to Dr. James B. Conant – Dated 5 August 1961,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 25: Books: SSR 1962; Correspondence: Pre-publication.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1961/1977. “The Function of Measurement in Modern Physical Science,” in Thomas Kuhn, Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 178–224. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1962/2012. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed., with an introductory essay by Hacking, Ian. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1962. “Historical Structure of Scientific Discovery,” Science 136:3518 (June 1, 1962), pp. 760–764.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1963. “Letter to George Stigler – Dated 24 October 1963,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 15, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Correspondence S. Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1966a. “Letter to Miss Margaret Masterman – Dated 1 June 1966,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 11: Correspondence: Masterman, Margaret.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T, S. 1966b. “Lecture Notes: Phil – Hum 537, Meeting #1 – 2/11/66,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 2: Folder 10, Development of Scientific Knowledge 537: 1966.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1968/1977. “The History of Science,” in Kuhn, T. S., Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 105–126. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1969/1977. “Comments on the Relations of Science and Art,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 340–351. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. S. 1969/2012. “Postscript – 1969,” in Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 4th ed., with an introductory essay by Hacking, Ian, pp. 173–208. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970/1977. “Logic of Discovery or Psychology of Research?,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 266–292. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1970/2000. “Reflections on My Critics,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, J. and Haugeland, J. pp. 123–175. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1971/1977. “The Relations between History and the History of Science,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 127–161. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1972. “Letter to Professor John L. Heilbron – 5 September 1972,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 21: Folder 40, Correspondence: Heilbron, John.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1973. “Letter to Professor Kandall – 20 June 1973,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 11, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Correspondence K–L.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1973/1977. “Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 320–339. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1974/1977. “Second Thoughts on Paradigms,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 293–319. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1976. “Letter to David Edge – Dated 21 July 1976,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC 240, Box 12: Social Studies of Science, 1970–1976.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1976/1977a. “The Relations Between the History and the Philosophy of Science,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 3–20. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1976/1977b. “Mathematical versus Experimental Traditions in the Development of Physical Science,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. 31–65. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1977. “Preface,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change, pp. ix–xxiii. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas. S. 1978/1987. Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894–1912. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1979. “Foreword,” in Fleck, L., Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, edited by Trenn, T. J. and Merton, R. K., translated by F. Bradley and T. J. Trenn, pp. vii–xi. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1979/2000. “Metaphor in Science,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and Haugeland, John, pp. 196–207. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1983a. “Reflections on Receiving the John Desmond Bernal Award,” 4S Review 1:4, 26–30.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1983b. “Letter to Professor Ernan McMullin – Dated March 29, 1983,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 22: Correspondence: McMullin, Ernan.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1984a. “Professionalization Recollected in Tranquility,” Isis 75 (1): 29–32.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1984b. “Scientific Development and Lexical Change: The Thalheimer Lectures,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 23: Lectures/Meetings: Thalheimer Lectures, Scientific Development and Lexical Change, [2 folders] 1984.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1986. “Letter to Kenneth Grau – Dated 24 June 1986,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 16, Advice, 1986–1987.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1987/2000. “What Are Scientific Revolutions?,” in Kuhn, T. S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, J. and Haugeland, J., pp. 13–32. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1989. “Proposal to the National Science Foundation: 1 August 1989,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 12, NSF Research Reports (1 of 2 files).Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1989/2000. “Possible Worlds in the History of Science,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and Haugeland, John, pp. 58–89. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1990/2016. “The Nature of Scientific Knowledge: An Interview with Thomas S. Kuhn,” in Blum, A., Gavroglu, K., Joas, C. and Renn, J. (eds.), Shifting Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn and the History of Science, pp. 17–30. Edition Open Access, Max Planck Institute for the History of Science. Berlin: Neopubli GmbH.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1991. “Letter to Jigang Wei – Dated 9 September 1991,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 40, Correspondence, W.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1991/2000a. “The Road since Structure,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and Haugeland, John, pp. 90–104. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1991/2000b. “The Natural and the Human Sciences,” in Kuhn, Thomas S., The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and Haugeland, John, pp. 216–223. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1992. “Letter to Mr. Frederick L. Whitaker – Dated 15 January 1992,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 40, Correspondence, W.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1992/2000. “The Trouble with the Historical Philosophy of Science,” in Kuhn’s, T. S. The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, J. and Haugeland, J., pp. 105–120. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1993a. “Letter to Professor J. van Brakel – Dated 30 May 1993,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 39, Correspondence, V.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. 1993b. “Letter to Professor C.C. Gillispie – Dated 13 February 1993,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 21: Folder 35, Correspondence: Gillispie, Charles.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. 1997/2000. “A Discussion with Thomas S. Kuhn,” in The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays. 1970–1993, with an Autobiographical Interview, edited by Conant, James and John, Haugeland, pp. 255–323. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S., Heilbron, J. L., Forman, P. and Allen, L.. 1967. Sources for History of Quantum Physics. American Philosophical Society, Memoir 68. https://amphilsoc.org/guides/ahqp/index.htm (accessed July 29, 2020).Google Scholar
Kusch, Martin. 2015. “Scientific Pluralism and the Chemical Revolution,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 49: 69–79.Google Scholar
Ladyman, J. 1998. “What Is Structural Realism?,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 29:3, 409–424.Google Scholar
Lakatos, Imre. 1970/1972. “Falsification and the Methodology of Scientific Research Programmes,” in Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Volume 4, pp. 91–196. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno. 1987. Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar, Steve. 1979/1986. Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1977. Progress and Its Problems: Toward a Theory of Scientific Growth. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Laudan, Larry. 1981. “Confutation of Convergent Realism,” Philosophy of Science 48, 19–49.Google Scholar
Laudan, L. 1984. Science and Values: The Aims of Science and their Role in Scientific Debate. Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Leijonhufvud, A. 1976. “Schools, ‘Revolutions,’ and Research Programmes in Economic Theories,” in Latsis, S. J. (ed.), Method and Appraisal in Economics, pp. 65–108. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leontief, W. 1964. “Letter to Thomas Kuhn,” in Kuhn, Thomas S. Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 11, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Correspondence K-L. Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Little, D. 1991. Varieties of Social Explanation: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Social Science. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, Inc.Google Scholar
Longino, H. E. 1990. Science as Social Knowledge: Values and Objectivity in Scientific Inquiry. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mach, Ernst. 1893/1960. The Science of Mechanics: A Critical and Historical Account of Its Development, translated by McCormack, T. J., 6th ed. with revisions through the ninth German edition. La Salle, IL: The Open Court Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Marcum, James A. 2015. Thomas Kuhn’s Revolutions: A Historical and an Evolutionary Philosophy of Science? London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Massimi, Michela. 2015. “Walking the Line: Kuhn Between Realism and Relativism,” in Devlin, William J. and Bokulich, Alisa (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On. Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science 311, pp. 135–152. Dordrecht: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
Masterman, M. 1966. “Letter to Professor T. S. Kuhn – 8 June 1966,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 11: Correspondence: Masterman, Margaret.Google Scholar
Masterman, M. 1970/1972. “The Nature of a Paradigm,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. IV, reprinted with corrections, pp. 59–89. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Matthews, M. R. 2003. “Thomas Kuhn’s Impact on Science Education: What Lessons Can Be Learned?,” Science Education 88:1, 90–118.Google Scholar
Mauskopf, Seymour H. 2012. “Thomas S. Kuhn and the Chemical Revolution,” Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 42:5, 551–556.Google Scholar
Maxwell, Grover. 1962. “The Ontological Status of Theoretical Entities,” in Feigl, Herbert and Maxwell, Grover (eds.), Scientific Explanation, Space and Time, pp. 3–27. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. 1994. “The Advance of Science and Scientific Revolutions,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences 30, 328–334.Google Scholar
McEvoy, John G. 2010/2016. The Historiography of the Chemical Revolution. Routledge: London.Google Scholar
McMichael, Alan. 1985. “Van Fraassen’s Instrumentalism,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36, 257–272.Google Scholar
McMullin, E. 1976. “History and Philosophy of Science: A Marriage of Convenience?,” in Cohen, R. S., Hooker, C. A., Michalos, A. C. and Evra, J. W. Van (eds.), PSA 1974. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, Vol. 32, pp. 585–681. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1982. “Values in Science,” PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1982, Vol. 1982, Volume Two: Symposia and Invited Papers (1982), 3–28.Google Scholar
McMullin, Ernan. 1992. “Rationality and Paradigm Change in Science,” in Horwich, Paul (ed.), World Changes: Thomas Kuhn and the Nature of Science, pp. 55–78. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Melogno, P., and Courtoisie, A.. 2019. “Stepping into the 60s: Tomas [sic] Kuhn’s Intellectual Turn towards the Philosophy of Science,” Daimon: Revista Internacional de Filosofía 76: 23–33.Google Scholar
Meltzer, D. J. 1979. “Paradigms and the Nature of Change in American Archaeology,” American Antiquity 44:4, 644–657.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1949/1996. “Manifest and Latent Functions,” in Merton, R. K., On Social Structure and Science, edited by Sztompka, P., pp. 87–95. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1957/1973. “Priorities in Scientific Discovery,” in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W., pp. 286–324. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, Robert K. 1959. “Letter to Tom – Dated 25 May 1959,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 23: Lecture/Meetings: Berkeley Social Science Colloquium, 1956.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1961/1973. “Singletons and Multiples in Science,” in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W., pp. 343–370. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1963/1973. “Multiple Discoveries as a Strategic Research Site,” in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W., pp. 371–382. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1968/1973. “The Matthew Effect in Science,” in Merton, R. K., The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, edited by Storer, N. W., pp. 439–459. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1975. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated 16 April 1975,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 22: Correspondence: Merton, Robert K.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1976. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated 18 February 1976,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 22: Correspondence: Merton, Robert K.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1977. The Sociology of Science: An Episodic Memoir. Carbondale and Edwardsville, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. 1988. “The Matthew Effect in Science, II: Cumulative Advantage and the Symbolism of Intellectual Property,” Isis 79:4, 606–623.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. and Barber, E.. 2004. The Travels and Adventures of Serendipity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mirowski, Philip. 2005. “Hoedown at the OK Corral: More Reflections on the ‘Social’ in Current Philosophy of Science,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 36, 790–800.Google Scholar
Mizrahi, M. 2020. “The Case Study Method in Philosophy of Science: An Empirical Study,” Perspectives on Science 28:1, 63–88.Google Scholar
Mladenović, B. 2017. Kuhn’s Legacy: Epistemology, Metaphilosophy, Pragmatism. New York, NY: Columbia University.Google Scholar
Moleski, Martin X. 2007. “Polanyi vs. Kuhn: Worldviews Apart,” Tradition and Discovery 33:2, 8–24.Google Scholar
Möβner, Nicola. 2011. “Thought Styles and Paradigms – A Comparative Study of Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn,” Studies in History of Philosophy of Science, 42:2, 362–371.Google Scholar
Mullins, Phil. 2002. “On Persons and Knowledge: Marjorie Grene and Michael Polanyi,” in R. E. Auxier and L. E. Hahn (eds.), The Philosophy of Marjorie Grene, pp. 31–60. Chicago, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Mullins, Phil. 2009/2010. “In Memoriam: Marjorie Grene,” Tradition & Discovery: The Polanyi Society Periodical 36:1, 55–69.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. 1936a. “Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe, I,” Journal of Philosophy 33:1, 5–24.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. 1936b. “Impressions and Appraisals of Analytic Philosophy in Europe, II,” Journal of Philosophy 33:2, 29–53.Google Scholar
Nagel, E. 1939. Principles of the Theory of Probability, 1:6, of International Encyclopedia of Unified Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernest. 1961. The Structure of Science: Problems in the Logic of Scientific Explanation. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Nash, Leonard K. 1950/1957. “The Atomic-Molecular Theory,” in James B. Conant and Leonard K. Nash (ed.), Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science, Vol. I, pp. 215–321. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nash, Leonard K. 1957. “Letter to Thomas Kuhn – Dated 10 April 1957,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 11: Folder 48, Correspondence with Individuals, Nash, Leonard, 1957–63.Google Scholar
Nash, Leonard K. 1963. “Letter to Professor Thomas S. Kuhn – Dated May 24, 1963,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 11: Folder 48, Correspondence with Individuals, Nash, Leonard, 1957–63.Google Scholar
Neubarth, N. L., Emanuel, Alan J., Liu, Yin et al. 2020. “Meissner Corpuscles and their Spatial Intermingled Afferents Underlie Gentle Touch Perception,” Science 368 (June 19, 2020).Google Scholar
Neuber, Matthias. 2011. “Feigl’s ‘Scientific Realism,’” Philosophy of Science 78:1, 165–183.Google Scholar
Nickles, T. 2003. “Normal Science: From Logic to Case-Based and Model-Based Reasoning,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 142–177. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nobel. 1977. “Philip W. Anderson: Biographical,” The Nobel Prize. www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1977/anderson/biographical/ (accessed April 1, 2020).Google Scholar
Nola, R. 2000. “Saving Kuhn from the Sociologists of Science,” Science & Education, 9, 77–90.Google Scholar
NSF. 1989. “History and Philosophy of Science & Technology – Panel Summary,” in the TSK Archives. Box 20: Folder 13, NSF (2 of 2).Google Scholar
Nye, M. J. 2011. Michael Polanyi and His Generation: Origins of the Social Construction of Science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Nye, M. J. 2019. “Shifting Trends in Modern Physics, Nobel Recognition, and the Histories that We Write,” Physics in Perspective 21, 3–22.Google Scholar
Oberheim, Eric. 2005. “On the Historical Origins of the Contemporary Notion of Incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend’s Assault on Epistemic Conservativism.” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36:2, 363–390.Google Scholar
Oberheim, E. and Hoyningen-Huene, P.. 2018. “The Incommensurability of Scientific Theories,” in Edward N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2018 edition), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2018/entries/incommensurability/ (accessed February 11, 2021).Google Scholar
Oppenheim, Paul and Putnam, Hilary. 1958. “Unity of Science as a Working Hypothesis,” in Feigl, Herbert, Scriven, Michael and Maxwell, Grover (eds.), Concepts, Theories, and the Mind-Body Problem, pp. 3–36. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Papineau, D. 1974. “Review of the Structure of Scientific Inference by Mary Hesse,” Cambridge Review, May 1974, 167–168.Google Scholar
Patton, L. 2018. “Kuhn, Pedagogy, and Practice: A Local Reading of Structure,” in Mizrahi, M. (ed.), The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation?, pp. 113–130. London: Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.Google Scholar
Pinto de Oliveira, J. C. 2017. “Thomas Kuhn, the Image of Science and the Image of Art: The First Manuscript of Structure,” Perspectives on Science 25:6, 746–765.Google Scholar
Pitt, J. C. 2001. “The Dilemma of Case Studies: Toward a Heraclitian Philosophy of Science,” Perspectives on Science 9:4, 373–382.Google Scholar
Planck, Max. 1909/1992. “The Unity in the Physical World Picture,” in Blackmore, J. (ed.), Ernst Mach – A Deeper Look: Documents and New Perspectives, pp. 141–146. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Poincaré, H. 1903/2001. “Science and Hypotheses,” in S.J. Gould (ed.), The Value of Science: Essential Writings of Henri Poincaré. New York, NY: The Modern Library.Google Scholar
Polanyi, Michael. 1962. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Politi, V. 2018. “Scientific Revolutions, Specialization and the Discovery of the Structure of DNA: Toward a New Picture of the Development of the Sciences,” Synthese 195: 2267–2293.Google Scholar
Polsby, N. W. 1998. “Social Science and Scientific Change: A Note on T. S. Kuhn’s Contribution,” Annual Review of Political Science 1, 199–210.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1944. “The Poverty of Historicism, I,” Economica, 11:42 (May 1944), 86–103.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1956/1963. “Three Views Concerning Human Knowledge,” in Popper, Karl R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, pp. 130–160. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1963. “Science: Conjectures and Refutations,” in Popper, Karl R., Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge, pp. 43–86. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1970/1972. “Normal Science and Its Dangers,” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. IV, reprinted with corrections, pp. 51–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1974. “Replies to My Critics,” in Paul A. Schilpp (ed.), The Philosophy of Karl Popper, 2 vols., pp. 961–1197. La Salle, IL: Open Court.Google Scholar
Popper, Karl R. 1974/1992. Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Popper, K. R. 1975/1981. “The Rationality of Scientific Revolutions,” in Hacking, I. (ed.), Scientific Revolutions, pp. 80–106. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Popper, K. 1978. “Natural Selection the Emergence of Mind,” Dialectica, 32:3–4, 339–355.Google Scholar
Portin, P. 2015. “The Development of Genetics in the Light of Thomas Kuhn’s Theory of Scientific Revolutions,” Recent Advances in DNA and Gene Sequences 9, 14–25.Google Scholar
Post, H. R. 1971. “Correspondence, Invariance and Heuristics: In Praise of Conservative Heuristics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 2:3, 213–255.Google Scholar
Psillos, Stathis. 1999. Scientific Realism: How Science Tracks Truth. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Putnam, Hilary. 1978. Meaning and the Moral Sciences. Boston, London and Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Pyle, Andrew. 2000. “The Rationality of the Chemical Revolution,” in Nola, Robert and Sankey, Howard (eds.), After Popper, Kuhn, and Feyerabend, pp. 99–124. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Reichenbach, H. 1938/2006. Experience and Prediction: An Analysis of the Foundations and the Structure of Knowledge. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Reingold, N. 1980. “Through Paradigm-Land to a Normal History of Science,” Social Studies of Science 10:4, 475–496.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. 1991. “Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?,” Philosophy of Science 58:2, 264–277.Google Scholar
Reisch, George A. 2005. How the Cold War Transformed Philosophy of Science: To the Icy Slopes of Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Reisch, G. A. 2016. “Aristotle in the Cold War: On the Origins of Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” in Richards, R. J. and Aston, L. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic, pp. 12–29. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Reisch, George A. 2019. The Politics of Paradigms: Thomas S. Kuhn, James B. Conant, and the Cold War “Struggle for Men’s Minds.” Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Renzi, B. G. 2009. “Kuhn’s Evolutionary Epistemology and Its Being Undermined by Inadequate Biological Concepts,” Philosophy of Science 76:2, 143–159.Google Scholar
Reydon, T. A. C., and Hoyningen-Huene, P.. 2010. “Discussion: Kuhn’s Evolutionary Analogy in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and ‘The Road since Structure,” Philosophy of Science 77:3, 468–476.Google Scholar
Reynolds, A. 1999. “What Is Historicism?,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 13:3, 275–287.Google Scholar
Richards, Robert J., and Daston, Lorraine (eds). 2016. Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty: Reflections on a Science Classic. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A. 2007. “‘That Sort of Everyday Image of Logical Positivism’: Thomas Kuhn and the Decline of Logical Empiricist Philosophy of Science,” in Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, pp. 346–369. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Richardson, A., and Uebel, T.. 2007. “Introduction,” in Richardson, A. and Uebel, T. (eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Logical Empiricism, pp. 1–10. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ritzer, G. 1981. “Paradigm Analysis in Sociology: Clarifying the Issues,” American Sociological Review 46:2, 245–248.Google Scholar
RLE Undercurrents. 1997. “A Last, Loving Look at an MIT Landmark – Building 20,” RLE Undercurrents, 9:2. www.rle.mit.edu/media/undercurrents/Vol9_2_Spring97.pdf (accessed May 24, 2021).Google Scholar
Rossiter, M. 1984. “The History and Philosophy of Science Program at the National Science Foundation,” Isis 75:1, 95–104.Google Scholar
Rowbottom, Darrell P. 2019. The Instrument of Science: Scientific Anti-realism Revitalized. New York and London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.Google Scholar
Rueger, A. 1996. “Risk and Diversification in Theory Choice,” Synthese 109:2, 263–280.Google Scholar
Sankey, H. 2018a. “The Demise of the Incommensurability Thesis,” in Mizrahi, M. (ed.), The Kuhnian Image of Science: Time for a Decisive Transformation?, pp. 75–91. London: Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd.Google Scholar
Sankey, Howard. 2018b. “Kuhn, Relativism and Realism,” in Saatsi, Juha (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, pp. 72–83. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Sauer, T., and Scholl, R. (eds.). 2016. The Philosophy of Historical Case Studies, Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, Vol. 319. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Scerri, Eric R. and Lee, McIntyre. 1997. “The Case for the Philosophy of Chemistry,” Synthese 111, 213–232.Google Scholar
Scheffler, Israel. 1967. Science and Subjectivity. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.Google Scholar
Schindler, S. 2018. Theoretical Virtues in Science: Uncovering Reality Through Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schlick, M. 1930–1931/1959. “The Turning Point in Philosophy,” in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 53–59. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Schlick, Moritz. 1932–1933/1959. “Positivism and Realism,” in Ayer, A. J. (ed.), Logical Positivism, pp. 82–107. New York, NY: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Scholl, R. 2018. “Scenes from a Marriage: On the Confrontation Model of History and Philosophy of Science,” Journal of the Philosophy of History 12:2, 212–238.Google Scholar
Schummer, Joachim. 2006. “The Philosophy of Chemistry: From Infancy Toward Maturity,” in Baird, Davis, Scerri, Eric and McIntyre, Lee (eds.), Philosophy of Chemistry: Synthesis of a New Discipline, pp. 19–39. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Schuster, J. A. 2018. “The Pitfalls and Possibilities of Following Koyré: The Younger Tom Kuhn, ‘Critical Historian,’ on Tradition Dynamics and Big History,” in Pisano, R., Agassi, J. and Drozdova, D. (eds.), Hypotheses and Perspectives in the History and Philosophy of Science: Homage to Alexandre Koyré 1892–1964, pp. 391–420. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Sent, E.-M. 2004. “Behavioral Economics: How Psychology Made Its (Limited) Way Back into Economics,” History of Political Economy 36:4, 735–760.Google Scholar
Sewell, W. H., Jr. 2005. Logics of History: Social Theory and Social Transformation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. 1964. “Review of Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Philosophical Review 73:3, 383–394.Google Scholar
Shapere, D. 1971. “Review: The Paradigm Concept,” Science 172:3984 (May 14, 1971) 706–709.Google Scholar
Shapin, Steven, and Schaffer, Simon. 1985. Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Sharer, R. J., and Ashmore, W.. 2003. Archaeology: Discovering Our Past, 3rd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Shearmur, J. 2017. “Popper’s Influence on the Social Sciences,” in McIntyre, L. and Rosenberg, A. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to Philosophy of Social Science, pp. 55–64. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Shirley, John W. 1951. “The Harvard Case Histories in Experimental Science: The Evolution of an Idea,” American Journal of Physics 19, 419–423.Google Scholar
Smart, J. J. C. 1963. Philosophy and Scientific Realism. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Staley, Richard. 2013. “Trajectories in the History and Historiography of Physics in the Twentieth Century,” History of Science 51:2, 151–177.Google Scholar
Stanford, P. K. 2006. Exceeding Our Grasp: Science, History, and the Problem of Unconceived Alternatives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stephens, J. 1973. “The Kuhnian Paradigm and Political Inquiry: An Appraisal,” American Journal of Political Science 17:3, 467–488.Google Scholar
Stigler, G. 1963. “Letter to Thomas Kuhn – Dated 14 March 1963,” in Thomas S. Kuhn Papers, MC240, Box 4: Folder 15, Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Correspondence S. Institute Archives and Special Collections, MIT Libraries, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Strong, E. 1992. “Philosopher, Professor, and Berkeley Chancellor: Edward W. Strong. Interviews Conducted by Harriet Nathan in 1988.” Berkeley: The Regents of the University of California. http://texts.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt2p30025k&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text (accessed July 30, 2020).Google Scholar
Tang, S. 2011. “Foundational Paradigms of Social Sciences,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 41:2, 211–249.Google Scholar
Thackray, Arnold, and Merton, Robert K.. 1972. “On Discipline Building: The Paradoxes of George Sarton,” Isis 63:4, 472–495.Google Scholar
Thagard, Paul. 1990. “The Conceptual Structure of the Chemical Revolution,” Philosophy of Science, 57: 183–209.Google Scholar
Thorne, J. P. 1965. “Review of Paul Postal’s Constituent Structure: A Study of Contemporary Models of Syntactic Description,” Journal of Linguistics 1:1, 73–76.Google Scholar
Timmins, Adam. 2013. “Why Was Kuhn’s Structure More Successful than Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge,” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science 3: 306–317.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1970/1972. “Does the Distinction Between Normal and Revolutionary Science Hold Water?” in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, London, 1965, Vol. IV, reprinted with corrections, eds. Lakatos, Imre and Musgrave, Alan, pp. 39–47. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen. 1972. Human Understanding, Vol. 1. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Trenn, Thaddeus. J. 1979. “Preface,” in Fleck, L. (ed.), Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact, translated by Bradley, Fred and Trenn, Thaddeus J., pp. xiii–xix. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Truman, D. B. 1965. “Disillusion and Regeneration: The Quest for a Discipline,” American Political Science Review 59:4, 865–873.Google Scholar
Tsou, J. Y. 2015. “Reconsidering the Carnap-Kuhn Connection,” in Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 51–69. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Vickers, Peter. 2018. “Historical Challenges to Realism,” in Saatsi, Juha (ed.), The Routledge Handbook of Scientific Realism, pp. 48–59. London: Routledge,Google Scholar
Walker, T. C. 2010. “The Perils of Paradigm Mentalities: Revisiting Kuhn, Lakatos, and Popper,” Perspectives on Politics 8:2, 433–451.Google Scholar
Watkins, J. 1970. “Against ‘Normal Science,’” in Lakatos, I. and Musgrave, A. (eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge: Proceedings of the International Colloquium in the Philosophy of Science, 1965, Volume 4, pp. 25–37. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weingart, S. 2015. “Finding the History and Philosophy of Science,” Erkenntnis 80: 201–213.Google Scholar
White, H. 1963. “Review of Quantification: A History of the Meaning of Measurement in the Natural and Social Sciences, by Harry Woolf,” American Journal of Sociology 69:1, 84–85.Google Scholar
Whitesides, George M. 2013. “Is the Focus on ‘Molecules’ Obsolete?” Annual Review of Analytic Chemistry 6: 1–29.Google Scholar
Wilkins, A. S. 1996. “Are There ‘Kuhnian’ Revolutions in Biology?” BioEssays 18:9, 695–696.Google Scholar
Worrall, John. 1989. “Structural Realism: The Best of Both Worlds?” Dialectica 43:1–2, 99–124.Google Scholar
Worrall, John. 2002. “Normal Science and Dogmatism, Paradigms and Progress: Kuhn ‘versus’ Popper and Lakatos,” in Nickles, T. (ed.), Thomas Kuhn, pp. 65–100. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2002. “Social Selection, Agents’ Intentions, and Functional Explanation,” Analyse & Kritik 24: 72–86.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2003. “Is Science Really a Young Man’s Game?” Social Studies of Science 33:1, 137–149.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2010. “Philosophy of Science: What Are the Key Journals in the Field?” Erkenntnis, 72: 423–430.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2011. Kuhn’s Evolutionary Social Epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2015a. “Pessimistic Inductions: Four Varieties,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 29:1, 61–73.Google Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2015b. “The Methodological Defense of Realism Scrutinized,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 54, 74–79.Google Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2015c. “Kuhn’s Social Epistemology and the Sociology of Science,” in Devlin, W. J. and Bokulich, A. (eds.), Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, pp. 167–183. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2016. “The Influence of James B. Conant on Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” HOPOS: The Journal of the International Society for the History of Philosophy of Science, 6:1, 1–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/685542Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2017. “Kuhn’s Influence on the Social Sciences,” in McIntyre, L. and Rosenberg, A. (eds.), The Routledge Companion to the Philosophy of Social Science, pp. 65–75. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2018a. Resisting Scientific Realism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, K. Brad. 2018b. “Thomas Kuhn and the T. S. Kuhn Archives at MIT,” OUPblog, May 7, 2018. https://blog.oup.com/2018/05/thomas-kuhn-archives-mit/ (accessed June 5, 2021).Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2019. “Discarded Theories: The Role of Changing Interests,” Synthese 196, 553–569.Google Scholar
Wray, K. B. 2020. “Paradigms in Structure: Finally, a Count,”Scientometrics 125, 823–828.Google Scholar
Zammito, J. H. 2004. A Nice Derangement of Epistemes: Post-Positivism in the Study of Science from Quine to Latour. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Zuckerman, H. 1977/1996. Scientific Elite: Nobel Laureates in the United States. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 12, NSF Research Reports.Google Scholar
Kuhn, Thomas S. Papers, MC240, Box 20: Folder 12, NSF Research Reports.Google Scholar