This red-herring/straw-man has little to do with the definition of attributes which distinguish revolutions. My claim is that this definition is appropriate to apply to future scientific advances just like we apply definitions of "economics" or "chemistry". These current definitions do not predict anything other than our ability to say "This research which proposes to study 'Catalyzation via a Homologous Series of Tetraalkylammonium Graphite Compounds', belongs in the chemistry category."
Show me a historian, other than yourself, who claims to be able to be able to analyze revolutions
while they're in progress. Kuhn doesn't. Anderson, Barker, and Chen don't. Where do you get the idea that this is possible?
If the thinking of lower dimensions is unaffected by knowledge of object and process concept reconfigurations which occur during revolutions, are revolutionary new models more or less likely to arise, in you opinion?
"
During revolutions". That means "when the new model has popped up and is you're deciding whether to adapt to it".
It is not a motivational tool for
encouraging new models to pop up. So, no, I don't think that
telling people to think about revolutions makes the slightest difference to anything.
I repeat that:
what theorists actually do, at their desks every day, is something that Kuhn or Anderson (or you) would probably label as "object and process reconfigurations". We have vast mathematical toolkits whose
entire point is to map between different ways of describing concepts. Walk into a theory seminar and you'll see people taking
every physics concept you've ever heard of and quantizing it, rotating it, regauging it, taking its holographic dual, going from representations to groups to bundles to fibrations to God-knows-what and back again. Things you thought were particles turn into fields. Things you thought were fields turn into correlation functions. Things you thought were correlation functions turn into trajectories. Things you thought were spatial dimensions turn into massive scalar particles.
Isn't this "replacing object concepts with process concepts"? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, who cares? Is it likely to lead to a revolution? Well, it will if some version of it turns out to actually work. But "finding a version that works" is what physicists are already doing.
In other words, I think that if you walked into a physicists' office with a copy of CSoSR, and attempted to apply it, you
would not be able to tell what the object concepts are. You would not be able to tell what the process concepts are. If you offered advice to "try replacing object concepts as process concepts", the theorist would probably attempt to shoehorn what they're already doing into that description.
