  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.
