@article {Strasser2014,
	title = {Heuristic Reevaluation of the Bacterial Hypothesis of Peptic Ulcer Disease in the 1950s},
	journal = {Acta Biotheoretica},
	volume = {62},
	number = {4},
	year = {2014},
	pages = {429{\textendash}454},
	abstract = {<p>Throughout the first half of the twentieth century the research on peptic ulcer disease (PUD) focused on two rivaling hypothesis: the acidity and the bacterial one. The latter was dismissed during the 1950s only to be revived with Warrens and Marshalls discovery of Helicobacter pylori in the 1980s. In this paper we investigate why the bacterial hypothesis was abandoned in the 1950s, and whether there were good epistemic reasons for its dismissal. Of special interest for our research question is Palmers 1954 large-scale study, which challenged the bacterial hypothesis with serious counter-evidence, and which by many scholars is considered as the shifting point in the research on PUD. However, we show that: 1. The perceived refutatory impact of Palmers study was disproportionate to its methodological rigor. This undermines its perceived status as a crucial experiment against the bacterial hypothesis. 2. In view of this and other considerations we argue that the bacterial hypothesis was worthy of pursuit in the 1950s.</p>},
	author = {{\v S}e{\v s}elja, Dunja and Stra{\ss}er, Christian}
}
@incollection {944198,
	title = {How to Identify Scientifc Revolutions?},
	booktitle = {On Kuhn{\textquoteright}s Philosophy and its Legacy},
	volume = {8},
	year = {2010},
	pages = {251{\textendash}282},
	publisher = {CFCUL},
	address = {Lisbon},
	abstract = {<p>Conceptualizing scientific revolutions by means of explicating their causes, their underlying structure and implications has been an important part of Kuhn{\textquoteright}s philosophy of science and belongs to its legacy. In this paper we show that such {\textquotedblleft}explanatory concepts{\textquotedblright} of revolutions should be distinguished from a concept based on the identification criteria of scientific revolutions. The aim of this paper is to offer such a concept, and to show that it can be fruitfully used for a further elaboration of the explanatory conceptions of revolutions. On the one hand, our concept can be used to test the preciseness and accuracy of these conceptions, by examining to what extent their criteria fit revolutions as they are defined by our concept. On the other hand, our concept can serve as the basis on which these conceptions can be further specified. We will present four different explanatory concepts of revolutions {\textendash} Kuhn{\textquoteright}s, Thagard{\textquoteright}s, Chen{\textquoteright}s and Barker{\textquoteright}s, and Laudan{\textquoteright}s {\textendash} and point to the ways in which each of them can be further specified in view of our concept.</p>},
	isbn = {978-989-8247-12-4},
	author = {Weber, Erik and {\v S}e{\v s}elja, Dunja},
	editor = {Torres, Juan Manuel}
}
