About 1500 word, start with an intro that include clearly your thesis, and your topics. then stay on your topics and try not to go overboard. you have until Wednesday midnight. the prompt is: A Kuhn/Carnap mashup about relativism. Compare and contrast Kuhns paradigms and Carnaps linguistic frameworks. How are they similar? How are they different? (You dont have to go beyond the textbook and lecture discussions of Kuhn in order to answer this prompt, but you may find it helpful to read some of Structure it self. The pdf is searchable, btw.) Now consider a local relativist about electrons, who thinks that they only exist relative to something, as opposed to existing absolutely. For a Kuhnian, there levant something might be a certain paradigm for doing chemistry. For a Carnapian, it would be the linguistic framework of some chemical theory. Using the similarities and differences youve already noted, flesh out these two versions of relativism about electrons. (Kuhn has a nice summary of incommensurability on pp.148-50 of the book; pp.160-62 of the pdf.) Is one of the two versions preferable to the other? If so, which one, and why? If not, whats the best reason to reject both of them? (Note that were only asking you to answer ONE of these last two questions.)

About 1500 word, start with an intro that include clearly your thesis, and your topics. then stay on your topics and try not to go overboard. you have until Wednesday midnight. the prompt is: A Kuhn/Carnap mashup about relativism. Compare and contrast Kuhns paradigms and Carnaps linguistic frameworks. How are they similar? How are they different? (You dont have to go beyond the textbook and lecture discussions of Kuhn in order to answer this prompt, but you may find it helpful to read some of Structure it self. The pdf is searchable, btw.) Now consider a local relativist about electrons, who thinks that they only exist relative to something, as opposed to existing absolutely. For a Kuhnian, there levant something might be a certain paradigm for doing chemistry. For a Carnapian, it would be the linguistic framework of some chemical theory. Using the similarities and differences youve already noted, flesh out these two versions of relativism about electrons. (Kuhn has a nice summary of incommensurability on pp.148-50 of the book; pp.160-62 of the pdf.) Is one of the two versions preferable to the other? If so, which one, and why? If not, whats the best reason to reject both of them? (Note that were only asking you to answer ONE of these last two questions.)