In this paper we examine the pattern of conceptual change during scientific revolutions by using methods from cognitive psychology. We show that the changes characteristic of scientific revolutions, especially taxonomic changes, can occur in a continuous manner. Using the frame model of concept representation to capture structural relations within concepts and the direct links between concept and taxonomy, we develop an account of conceptual change in science that more adequately reflects the current understanding that episodes like the Copernican revolution are (...) not always abrupt. When concepts are represented by frames, the transformation from one taxonomy to another can be achieved in a piecemeal fashion not preconditioned by a crisis stage, and a new taxonomy can arise naturally out of the old frame instead of emerging separately from the existing conceptual system. This cognitive mechanism of continuous change demonstrates the constructive roles of anomaly and incommensurability in promoting the progress of science. (shrink)

I propose a new perspective with which to understand scientific revolutions. This is a conversion from an object-only perspective to one that properly treats object and process concepts as distinct kinds. I begin with a re-examination of the Copernican revolution. Recent findings from the history of astronomy suggest that the Copernican revolution was a move from a conceptual framework built around an object concept to one built around a process concept. Drawing from studies in the cognitive sciences, I then show (...) that process concepts are independent of object concepts, grounded in specific regions of the brain and involving unique representational mechanisms. There are cognitive obstacles to the transformation from object to process concepts, and an object bias—a tendency to treat processes as objects—makes this kind of conceptual change difficult. Consequently, transformation from object to process concepts is disruptive and revolutionary. Finally, I explore the implications of this new perspective on scientific revolutions for both the history and philosophy of science.Keywords: Scientific revolutions; Process concepts; Object concepts; Object bias; Copernican revolution. (shrink)

: This paper continues my application of theories of concepts developed in cognitive psychology to clarify issues in Kuhn's mature account of scientific change. I argue that incommensurability is typically neither global nor total, and that the corresponding form of scientific change occurs incrementally. Incommensurability can now be seen as a local phenomenon restricted to particular points in a conceptual framework represented by a set of nodes. The unaffected parts in the framework constitute the basis for continued communication between the (...) communities supporting alternative structures. The importance of a node is a measure of the severity of incommensurability introduced by replacing it. Such replacements occur incrementally so that changes like that from the conceptual structure of Aristotelian celestial physics to the conceptual structure of Newtonian celestial physics occur in small stages over time, and for each change it is in principle possible to identify the arguments and evidence that led historical actors to make the revisions. Thus the process of scientific change is a rational one, even when its beginning and end points are incommensurable conceptual structures. It is also apparent, from a detailed examination of the conceptual structure of astronomy at the time of Copernicus, thatthe kind of conceptual difficulty identified as incommensurability may occur within a single scientific tradition as well as between two rival traditions. (shrink)

We will examine Kepler's use of a relation between velocity and distance from a centre of circular motion. This relation plays an essential role, through a derivation in chapter 40 of the Astronomia Nova, in the presentation of the Area Law of planetary motion. Kepler transcends ancient and contemporary applications of the distance-velocity relation by connecting it with his metaphysical commitment to the causal role of the Sun. His second main innovation is to replace the astronomical models of his predecessors (...) with an account that derives trajectories from physical principles. In this paper we restrict our attention primarily to the first 40 chapters of Kepler's Astronomia Nova. Hence, we do not discuss Kepler's discovery of elliptical planetary orbits. (shrink)

I argue that Copernicus accepted the reality of celestial spheres on the grounds that the equant problem is unintelligible except as a problem about real spheres. The same considerations point to a number of generally unnoticed liabilities of Copernican astronomy, especially gaps between the spheres, and the failure of some spheres to obey the principle that their natural motion is to rotate. These difficulties may be additional reasons for Copernicus's reluctance to publish, and also stand in the way of strict (...) realism as applied to De Revolutionibus, although a realistic astronomy may be envisioned as a goal for Copernicus's research program. (shrink)

: This paper offers my current view of a joint research project, with Bernard R. Goldstein, that examines Kepler's unification of physics and astronomy. As an organizing theme, I describe the extent to which the work of Kepler led to the appearance of the form of Copernicanism that we accept today. In the half century before Kepler's career began, the understanding of Copernicus and his work was significantly different from the modern one. In successive sections I consider the modern conception (...) of Kepler's contribution to Copernicanism, the most influential sixteenth century view of Copernicus's work and its sequel, Kepler's work from the viewpoint of this tradition, and finally the historical origins of the modern view of Copernicanism. (shrink)

First Published in 2008. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

This article examines a set of letters and observational reports that passed between Ludwig of Württemberg and Wilhelm of Hesse in response to the nova of 1572. Discussing the terminology used in this debate, it demonstrates that the terms “star” and “comet” were not unambiguous for sixteenth-century authors. A consideration of the relationship between accuracy of observation and the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from them, judged in the terms of twentieth-century astronomy, shows that those observers with the best instruments (...) did not always have the best understanding of what they had observed. Finally, the role played by theology in facilitating interpretations that did not accord with Aristotelian physics is highlighted. (shrink)

El recurso cognitivo por el cual la ciencia ha obtenido información del mundo empírico ha sido, desde su origen, la medición. Ésta está sujeta a un proceso continuo de regeneración y transformación histórica. Los principales análisis metateóricos que se han realizado sobre la medición son en su mayoría sobre sus aspectos formales. En este artículo desarrollo un bosquejo de un enfoque histórico y cognitivo de la medición científica con el fin de mostrar sus diversos aspectos cognitivos, metodológicos y epistemológicos, mismos (...) que han sido sistemáticamente descuidados por la gran mayoría de los análisis en filosofía de la ciencia. Measurement has been the main cognitive resource through which science has obtained empirical information about the world. Scientific measurement is not a fixed process but an historical and dynamical one; nevertheless, almost all philosophical analysis have studied it from a formal point of view. My aim in this paper is to outline a cognitive and historical notion of scientific measurement that allows us to appreciate its diverse epistemic, methodological, and cognitive features. (shrink)