In their account of theory change in logic, Aberdein and Read distinguish 'glorious' from 'inglorious' revolutions--only the former preserves all 'the key components of a theory' . A widespread view, expressed in these terms, is that empirical science characteristically exhibits inglorious revolutions but that revolutions in mathematics are at most glorious . Here are three possible responses:
0. Accept that empirical science and mathematics are methodologically discontinuous;
1. Argue that mathematics can exhibit inglorious revolutions;
2. Deny that inglorious revolutions are characteristic of science.
Where Aberdein and Read take option 1, option 2 is preferred by Mizrahi . This paper seeks to resolve this disagreement through consideration of some putative mathematical revolutions.
 Andrew Aberdein and Stephen Read, The philosophy of alternative logics, The Development of Modern Logic (Leila Haaparanta, ed.), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, pp. 613-723.
 Donald Gillies (ed.), Revolutions in Mathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992.
 Moti Mizrahi, Kuhn's incommensurability thesis: What's the argument?, Social Epistemology 29 (2015), no. 4, 361-378.