|
Kuhn's work,
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, was very
influential. In my view, not necessarily for the better, because it was somewhat
vague in its analysis and assertions, misapplied outside the original field of
intent (science), and was co-opted by relativists.
Kuhn was not
particularly clear or precise about some of his terminology (like
"paradigm", for one), which added to the confusion. The Postscript to the later
edition of the book clarifies some of that.
It was an
interesting book, and while it may have pulled the curtain away from the
illusion of the scientific community as being guided solely by rationality and
logic in the successive advances of science, it was not as profound or
earth-shattering as has been long claimed, in my (humble)
opinion.
Regards,
Tim
I found an essay by Thomas Kuhn on paradigm shifts, while
wandering the internet, as well as some good commentary on the essay. One link
is this one:
The conclusion reached:
Indeed, Kuhn ultimately concludes that science depends on the
somewhat erratic decision-making process that favors one paradigm over the
other. "In short, if a new candidate for paradigm had to be judged from the
start by hard-headed people who examined only relative problem-solving
ability, the sciences would experience very few major revolutions." (3).
As Malcolm Gladwell wrote in The New Yorker, "That [Kuhn's] idea was
intended to apply only to the natural sciences did not matter. It was so
novel, so persuasive, and--upon the monograph's publication as a book, in
1970--so perfectly in the rebellious spirit of the times that it quickly
became adopted as a kind of general theory of everything" (1).
Kuhn's ideas were indeed truly pervasive. In philosophy, history,
sociology, economics, politics, and even religion, Kuhn's theory of paradigms
changed the nature of the fields.
Perhaps Gladwell summed up Kuhn's legacy best when he wrote, "Kuhn will
be remembered because he taught that the process of science was fundamentally
human, that discoveries were the product not of some plodding, rational
process but of human ingenuity intermingled with politics and
personality--that science was, in the end, a social process." -- Imran
Javaid
Interesting stuff, I think. In a discussion about the new science
journal I'm launching in my father's memory and what the title ought to be, I
think all of this is relevant.
Judith
|