Title:Redefining Revolutions

Abstract: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' [1]. A widespread view, expressed in these terms, is that empirical science characteristically exhibits inglorious revolutions but that revolutions in mathematics are at most glorious [2]. 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 [3]. This paper seeks to resolve this disagreement through consideration of some putative mathematical revolutions.
[1] 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.
[2] Donald Gillies (ed.), Revolutions in Mathematics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992.
[3] Moti Mizrahi, Kuhn's incommensurability thesis: What's the argument?, Social Epistemology 29 (2015), no. 4, 361-378.