Abstract
After commending Moleski for his excellent study, I focus attention on three areas that merit further clarification: (a) that Polanyi’s quest for public recognition was legitimate and not the effcet of a runawayvanity, (b) that Kuhn’s straining to define his dependence upon Polanyi was blocked by the unspecifiability clouding the discovery process and by his (mistaken) notion that Polanyi appealed to ESP to explain the dynamics of· discovery, and (c) that Kuhn’s success in gaining public recognition for his paradigm shift is understandable (just as is Polanyi’s relative failure). In the end, I list five areas wherein Kuhn’s accountl of scientific revolutions could be substantially improved by joining forces with Polanyi