<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="7.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><ref-type>17</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Van Dyck, Maarten</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Dynamics of Reason and the Kantian Project</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Philosophy of Science</style></secondary-title></titles><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2009</style></year></dates><number><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">5</style></number><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">76</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">389–400</style></pages><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">&lt;p&gt;I show why Michael Friedman’s idea that we should view new constitutive frameworks introduced in paradigm-change as members of a convergent series, introduces an uncomfortable tension in his views. It cannot be justified on realist grounds, as this would compromise his Kantian perspective, but his own appeal to a Kantian regulative ideal of reason cannot do the job either. I then explain a way to make better sense of the rationality of paradigm-change on what I take to Friedman’s own terms.&lt;/p&gt;</style></abstract></record></records></xml>