These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations.
Share via Email Illustration by Scott Garrett. Click for the full image Fifty years ago this month, one of the most influential books of the 20th century was published by the University of Chicago Press.
Many if not most lay people have probably never heard of its author, Thomas Kuhn, or of his book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutionsbut their thinking has almost certainly been influenced by his ideas.
A Google search for it returns more than 10 million hits, for example. And it currently turns up inside no fewer than 18, of the books marketed by Amazon.
It is also one of the most cited academic books of all time. So if ever a big idea went viral, this is it. Before Kuhn, our view of science was dominated by philosophical ideas about how it ought to develop "the scientific method"together with a heroic narrative of scientific progress as "the addition of new truths to the stock of old truths, or the increasing approximation of theories to the truth, and in the odd case, the correction of past errors", as the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy puts it.
Before Kuhn, in other words, we had what amounted to the Whig interpretation of scientific history, in which past researchers, theorists and experimenters had engaged in a long march, if not towards "truth", then at least towards greater and greater understanding of the natural world.
Where the standard account saw steady, cumulative "progress", he saw discontinuities — a set of alternating "normal" and "revolutionary" phases in which communities of specialists in particular fields are plunged into periods of turmoil, uncertainty and angst.
These revolutionary phases — for example the transition from Newtonian mechanics to quantum physics — correspond to great conceptual breakthroughs and lay the basis for a succeeding phase of business as usual.
The fact that his version seems unremarkable now is, in a way, the greatest measure of his success. But in almost everything about it was controversial because of the challenge it posed to powerful, entrenched philosophical assumptions about how science did — and should — work.
Born in in Cincinnati, he studied physics at Harvard, graduating summa cum laude inafter which he was swept up by the war effort to work on radar. He returned to Harvard after the war to do a PhD — again in physics — which he obtained in The course was centred around historical case studies and teaching it forced Kuhn to study old scientific texts in detail for the first time.
Given that formulation, I rapidly discovered that Aristotle had known almost no mechanics at all… that conclusion was standard and it might in principle have been right. But I found it bothersome because, as I was reading him, Aristotle appeared not only ignorant of mechanics, but a dreadfully bad physical scientist as well.
About motion, in particular, his writings seemed to me full of egregious errors, both of logic and of observation. By the standards of present-day physics, Aristotle looks like an idiot.
One must understand, for example, that for him the term "motion" meant change in general — not just the change in position of a physical body, which is how we think of it.
Or, to put it in more general terms, to understand scientific development one must understand the intellectual frameworks within which scientists work.
Kuhn remained at Harvard until and, having failed to get tenure, moved to the University of California at Berkeley where he wrote Structure… and was promoted to a professorship in The following year, the book was published by the University of Chicago Press.
Despite the pages of the first edition, Kuhn — in his characteristic, old-world scholarly style — always referred to it as a mere "sketch". He would doubtless have preferred to have written an page doorstop.
But in the event, the readability and relative brevity of the "sketch" was a key factor in its eventual success. Although the book was a slow starter, selling only copies inby mid it had soldcopies and sales to date now stand at 1.
For a cerebral work of this calibre, these are Harry Potter-scale numbers.
The first he christened "normal science" — business as usual, if you like. In this phase, a community of researchers who share a common intellectual framework — called a paradigm or a "disciplinary matrix" — engage in solving puzzles thrown up by discrepancies anomalies between what the paradigm predicts and what is revealed by observation or experiment.
Most of the time, the anomalies are resolved either by incremental changes to the paradigm or by uncovering observational or experimental error. As philosopher Ian Hacking puts it in his terrific preface to the new edition of Structure: It tends to discover what it expects to discover.
In the end, the crisis is resolved by a revolutionary change in world-view in which the now-deficient paradigm is replaced by a newer one. This is the paradigm shift of modern parlance and after it has happened the scientific field returns to normal science, based on the new framework.
And so it goes on.
To appreciate these, you have to read his book. But it does perhaps indicate why Structure… came as such a bombshell to the philosophers and historians who had pieced together the Whig interpretation of scientific progress.
The most influential philosopher of science in was Karl Popper, described by Hacking as "the most widely read, and to some extent believed, by practising scientists".
Popper summed up the essence of "the" scientific method in the title of one of his books: According to Popper, real scientists as opposed to, say, psychoanalysts were distinguished by the fact that they tried to refute rather than confirm their theories.
But in fact these critics were over-sensitive. A puzzle is something to which there is a solution.Critical Analysis of Thomas Kuhn’s “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” “In learning a paradigm, the scientist acquires theory, methods, and standards together, usually in an inextricable mixture.
Thomas Samuel Kuhn (/ k uː n /; July 18, – June 17, ) was an American physicist, historian and philosopher of science whose controversial book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term paradigm shift, which has since become an English-language idiom.
I found Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" very much a test to get past. Ordinarily, if a book doesn't keep my attention, or I think that it hard to peruse after the initial couple of pages, I initiativeblog.coms: Mar 05, · The topic of scientific revolutions has been philosophically important since Thomas Kuhn’s account in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (, ).
Kuhn’s death in and the fiftieth anniversary of Structure in have renewed attention to the issues raised by his work. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (; second edition ; third edition ; fourth edition ) is a book about the history of science by the philosopher Thomas S.
initiativeblog.com publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific initiativeblog.com challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science".Author: Thomas S.
Kuhn. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a fascinating book because it works out, detail after tiny detail, how a scientific revolution takes place. One of the most interesting ideas Kuhn posits is that we can't compare two paradigms with each other (say, Newtonian physi Isn't it ironic that a book about paradigm shifts caused a paradigm 4/5.