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
-----Original Message-----
From: ROSEN Forum [mailto:*** Behalf Of Judith Rosen
Sent: Saturday, September 04, 2004 8:26 AM
To: ***
Subject: Paradigm shifts through the history of science
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:
<http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~nagiel/99_hsr_webpage/hsr/winter97/kuhn.html>http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~nagiel/99_hsr_webpage/hsr/winter97/kuhn.html
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