Thomas Kuhn

We reconstruct Kuhn’s philosophy of measurement and data paying special attention to what he calls the “fifth law of thermodynamics”. According to this "law," there will always be discrepancies between experimental results and scientists’ prior expectations. The history of experiments to determine the values of the fundamental constants offers a striking illustration of Kuhn’s fifth law of thermodynamics, with no experiment giving quite the expected result. We highlight the synergy between Kuhn’s view and the systematic project of iteratively determining the (...) value of physical constants, initiated by spectroscopist Raymond Birge, that was ongoing when Kuhn joined Berkeley in 1956. Our analysis sheds light on various underappreciated aspects of Kuhn’s thought, especially his notion of progress as improvement in measurement accuracy. (shrink)

Pendant un demi-siècle, la méthode appropriée en philosophie des sciences dans la tradition continentale était l'étude historique ; dans la tradition anglosaxonne, l'analyse logique. Ce clivage au sein du discours philosophique s'est grandement estompé de nos jours. D'une part, Kuhn a défendu la pertinence philosophique de l'histoire des sciences. D'autre part, Vuillemin et Gilles-Gaston Granger ont promu l'étude de la philosophie analytique et l'emploi de ses techniques logiques. Le rapprochement des deux traditions a pris encore une nouvelle tournure dans les (...) derniers textes de Feyerabend et dans les travaux de Ian Hacking. Celui-ci associe délibérément les instruments historiques de l'école française avec les procédés logiques de l'école nordaméricaine. Quelle est la signification de ce rapprochement ? Quels problèmes fait-il surgir ? Quelles directions de recherche ouvre-t-il ? Telles sont les questions que nous aborderons par le biais d'une étude comparée de certains développements récents de la philosophie des sciences en France et en Amérique du Nord. For over half a century the continental tradition favored a historical method in philosophy of science, while the Anglo-American tradition promoted a logical method. In recent years this contrast has tended to lessen. On the one hand, there has been a growing interest since the 1970s in France for the analytic tradition, due to the pioneering studies of Vuillemin and Gilles-Gaston Granger. On the other hand, Kuhn has brought out the philosophical relevance of history of science. This tendency takes a new turn in Feyerabend's final texts as well as in the works of Ian Hacking. The latter deliberately combines the historical instruments of the French school with the logical techniques of the North-American school. How to understand this evolution ? What directions of research does it open up ? I address these questions by way of a comparative study of some recent developments in philosophy of science both in France and North America. (shrink)

Philosophers have long tried to understand scientific change in terms of a dynamics of revision within ‘theoretical frameworks,’ ‘disciplinary matrices,’ ‘scientific paradigms’ or ‘conceptual schemes.’ No-one, however, has made clear precisely how one might model such a conceptual scheme, nor what form change dynamics within such a structure could be expected to take. In this paper we take some first steps in applying network theory to the issue, modeling conceptual schemes as simple networks and the dynamics of change as cascades (...) on those networks. The results allow a new understanding of two traditional approaches—Popper and Kuhn—as well as introducing the intriguing prospect of viewing scientific change using the metaphor of selforganizing criticality. (shrink)

Robert Saudek, a Czech graphologist, journalist, diplomat, playwright, and novelist, was heavily influenced in his youth by Fritz Mauthner’s critique of language. Saudek later became a pioneer in the field of psychological graphology. In this article, I examine the impact of Mauthner’s critique on Saudek’s work and evaluate whether Saudek’s approach to graphology aligns with Mauthner’s ideas. I argue that, although Saudek’s graphology is rooted in Mauthner’s critique of experimental psychology, there remains room for further development in the field of (...) psychological graphology, centering on the analysis of language. With this in mind, I compare Saudek’s method and contemporary conceptual metaphor theory. I further suggest that Saudek’s extensive use of the autographs of well-known figures follows a method of working from examples, or specimens, which is not uncommon in the philosophy of science. Based on these findings, I propose a way of understanding Saudek’s graphology that challenges its characterization as a pseudoscience. (shrink)

In this paper I examine Thomas Kuhn’s epistolary and in-person exchanges with Richard Rorty, and their significance to the former’s work on the nature of scientific development during the years 1976–1986. Accordingly, it corresponds to a significant evolution of Kuhn’s thought from the position expounded earlier in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. These letters show how Kuhn’s philosophy of science evolved towards a greater emphasis on a key aspect of his former work—the nature of ‘the essential tension’—and that his more (...) linguistically-oriented perspective in these latter years has that emphasis as its goal—at least as a significant part. (shrink)

Changes of theories are major events in science. Two main types of questions may be asked about them: i) how do scientists choose new theories?, and ii) how is consensus formed? Generally, philosophers do not distinguish these two questions. Kuhn, on the contrary, offers very different answers to each of these questions. Theory-choice, on the one hand, is explained through the application of epistemic criteria, such as accuracy and consistency; nonetheless, because these values do not prescribe a single choice, consensus (...) formation, on the other hand, is explained through a series of socio-epistemic mechanisms, namely: scientific pedagogy, diffusion and production of knowledge within the community, and restructuring of the scientific field. These mechanisms are the basis of Kuhn’s social epistemology, in that they are not restricted to sociology nor epistemology, encompassing both social interactions and epistemic evaluations of theories. Keywords: Thomas Kuhn, consensus formation, social epistemology. (shrink)

Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has sold more than one million copies since its publication in 1962, is one of the most cited academic books of all time, and continues to be read and studied today. This volume of new essays evaluates the significance of Kuhn's classic book in its changing historical context, including its initial reception and its lasting effects. The essays explore the range of ideas which Kuhn made popular with his influential philosophy of science, including (...) paradigms, normal science, paradigm changes, scientific revolutions, and incommensurability; and they also look at less-studied themes in his work, including scientific measurement, science education, and science textbooks. Drawing on the latest scholarship as well as unpublished material in the Thomas Kuhn Archives at MIT, this volume offers a comprehensive way into Kuhn's philosophy and demonstrates the continuing relevance of his ideas for our understanding of science. (shrink)

This chapter examines the legacy of Kuhn’s Structure for normative philosophy of science. As an argument regarding the history of 20th century philosophy of science, I contend that the main legacy of Structure was destructive: Structure shifted philosophy of science away from addressing general normative philosophical issues (e.g., the demarcation problem, empirical testability) towards more deflationary and local approaches to normative issues. This is evident in the first generation of post-Structure philosophers of science in the 1980s and 1990s, who adopted (...) a pluralist approach to HPS. As a metaphilosophical argument regarding the methods adopted in HPS, I argue that there are a plurality of legitimate philosophical methodologies for inferring normative claims from historical cases. I frame this argument as a response to Pitt’s dilemma of case studies. I reject Pitt’s dilemma for its presupposition of an unrealistic and unfruitful standard (viz., epistemic certainty) for assessing HPS arguments and its analysis of philosophical methodology at the level of individual arguments. Pitt’s dilemma is most usefully understood as identifying potential points of criticism for HPS arguments. -/- The chapter begins with an examination of Kuhn’s normative philosophy of science in Structure and his position that historical cases provide evidence for philosophical claims. Kuhn’s philosophical methodology is insufficiently articulated, and his utilization of case studies is subject to objections (viz., interpretative bias, hasty generalization) implied by Pitt’s dilemma. I subsequently examine four post-Kuhnian methodological perspectives: (1) Ian Hacking’s particularism, (2) Helen Longino’s practice-based approach, (3) Michael Friedman’s neo-Kantianism, and (4) Hasok Chang’s complementary science. These views suggest alternative methodological strategies in HPS for addressing normative issues. I conclude by articulating some outstanding methodological challenges for the pluralist tradition of HPS—associated with the Stanford and Minnesota schools of philosophy of science—that emerged in the 1980s and remains influential. (shrink)

It is quite unequivocal that Kuhn was committed to (some version of) naturalism; that he defended, especially in his later work, the autonomy of scientific rationality; and that he rejected the correspondence theory of truth, i.e., the traditional realistic conception of the world’s mind-independence. In this paper, I argue that these three philosophical perspectives form an uneasy triangle, for while it is possible to coherently defend each of them separately or two of them combined, holding all three leads to incoherence. (...) Hence, the only option is to reject one of them in a way that is both compatible with Kuhnian historiography and philosophically fruitful. My purpose in this paper is not exegetical. My ambition is to sketch a coherent philosophical framework which does justice to Kuhn’s historiographical model for scientific change and avoids the philosophical costs of relativism and anti-naturalism. In particular, I argue in favor of the following interconnected positions: (1) Given the role of anomalies in Kuhn’s historiographical model, the latter satisfies the two fundamental conditions for acknowledging the mind-independence of the world: the ‘irreducibility condition’ and the ‘objectivity condition’, (2) Kuhn’s rejection of the notion of an ‘Archimedean platform’ does not entail that the truth-value of beliefs doesn’t play a role in the explanation of their change, (3) Adopting scientific realism is the only way to defend the autonomy of scientific rationality within a naturalistic philosophical framework. However, adopting realism leads to a liberal rather than an eliminative version of naturalism. (shrink)

In this chapter we focus on Rorty’s core commitments with respect to language, and consider their role in Rorty’s stormy relations to mainstream analytic philosophy. Further, we bring out key features of Rorty’s position by tracing his engagement with WittgensteinWittgenstein, SellarsSellars, QuineQuine, DavidsonDavidson, and KuhnKuhn.

This paper explores Thomas Kuhn’s intellectual history by examining sources that have been understudied so far: the Lowell Lectures of 1951 (The Quest for Physical Theory) and the hitherto unpublished Notre Dame Lectures of 1980. The analysis of these texts aims to reconstruct Kuhn’s development of a semantics that can account for scientific progress. This analysis will show that the alleged “linguistic turn” attributed to the author is actually a renewed interest in problems that existed well before publishing The Structure (...) of Scientific Revolutions. (shrink)

The paper takes off from the suggestion of Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen that Kuhn’s account of science may be understood in coherentist terms. There are coherentist themes in Kuhn’s philosophy of science. But one crucial element is lacking. Kuhn does not deny the existence of basic beliefs which have a non-doxastic source of justification. Nor does he assert that epistemic justification only derives from inferential relationships between non-basic beliefs. Despite this, the coherentist interpretation is promising and I develop it further in this (...) paper. I raise the question of whether Kuhn’s account of science can deal with the input objection to coherentism. I argue that the role played by problems in Kuhn’s theory of science ensures that there is input from the external world into scientists’ belief-systems. I follow Hoyningen-Huene in pointing to the causal role played by the external world in determining perceptual states. I next turn to the question of whether Kuhn’s rejection of foundationalism implies coherentism. I argue that Kuhn’s rejection of the one-to-one relation between object and experience is compatible with a foundationalist account of justification. Nor does Kuhn’s rejection of the given entail the same coherentist implications as Sellars’ critique of the myth of the given. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:The Last Writings of Thomas S. Kuhn: Incommensurability in Science by Thomas S. KUHNJonah N. SchupbachKUHN, Thomas S. The Last Writings of Thomas S. Kuhn: Incommensurability in Science. Edited by Bojana Mladenović. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2022. xlviii + 302 pp. Cloth, $27.50 [End Page 151]When The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was first published in 1962, Kuhn (1922–1996) warned readers that “space limits” forced him to (...) present his views “in an extremely condensed and schematic form.” From the start, Kuhn saw Structure as an essay in need of much more careful elaboration: “This work remains an essay rather than the full-scale book my subject will ultimately demand.” He endeavored to complete such a book late in his life but sadly died before completing the work. Nonetheless, we may gather a good sense of what this more careful study would have included by piecing together some important unpublished lecture notes and working drafts that he left behind.In The Last Writings of Thomas S. Kuhn: Incommensurability in Science, editor Bojana Mladenović collects the most important three of these previously unpublished writings, making them generally available for the first time. The bulk of the collection is taken up by the working draft (about two-thirds complete) of the book itself. This is preceded by two finished works that lend framing to that draft. In the essay “Scientific Knowledge as Historical Product” (1986), Kuhn contrasts his developmental approach to the epistemology and history of science with the traditional foundationalist approach it seeks to displace. “The Presence of Past Science” (1987) summarizes Kuhn’s mature views on the history and philosophy of scientific development, canvasing much of the same terrain as the book was to cover in more detail. The collection also includes an introduction and abstracts by Mladenović, in which she provides context for the three writings, relates their themes, and fills in the blanks regarding the likely contents of unfinished chapters.Like Structure, these works argue against the alethic stance that science progresses by accumulating progressively more truths. Also as in Structure, Kuhn denies that this amounts to rejecting science’s cognitive authority or a legitimate sense in which science may be said to progress. Indeed, Kuhn claims that it is by understanding the incoherence of an alethic account that we gain a more accurate understanding of science’s real cognitive authority and progress. It is Kuhn’s more elaborate explanation and defense of this claim that distinguishes these last writings.As suggested by this collection’s subtitle, the central concept in Kuhn’s developed account is incommensurability. Kuhn goes beyond Structure’s more cursory remarks on incommensurability of paradigms, according to which different meanings assigned to terms lead to a breakdown of communication between normal-scientific traditions. On Kuhn’s developed account, semantic shifts still play a part in understanding scientific development, but the locus of these is specifically taxonomic or “kind terms.” “Holistic alterations of kind terms” (or “lexical redesigns”) indicate more fundamental, prelinguistic changes in ontology. Science develops by a sequence of such reconceptualizations of the world. As fundamental ontology changes, so does the taxonomic lexicon we use to communicate about the world. Scientific traditions are incommensurable when they cluster taxonomic kinds in fundamentally incompatible ways. [End Page 152] Languages are incommensurable when claims expressible using one language’s lexicon are in principle inexpressible (“untranslatable”) using the lexicon of the other.One of the most striking ways in which Kuhn carefully steps back from well-known claims in Structure is in his reluctance to speak of scientific changes as revolutionary paradigm shifts. Indeed, Kuhn abandons talk of “paradigms” and “revolutions” altogether in his developed account. Kuhn’s earlier notion of a paradigm was repeatedly criticized for being polysemic, his use of the term correspondingly ambiguous (see Kuhn, “Second thoughts on paradigms,” in The Essential Tension, 1977). Accepting these criticisms, Kuhn sets his most famous concept aside and replaces it with the more precise notion of a structured kind set—a tradition’s lexicon of kind terms, corresponding to its ontological “clustering” of the world. Ontological reconceptualizations and lexical redesigns then take the place of revolutionary paradigm shifts.Far from being... (shrink)

A comparative analysis of the different notions of ‘ways of thinking’ introduced by philosophers. A guiding thread running through historical epistemology in an attempt to unify the researches of its authors. A comprehensive study of Ian Hacking’s ‘project of styles of reasoning’ and its implications for the relativism.

O artigo propõe como tema aproximar a ontologia fundamental de Martin Heidegger e a epistemologia de Thomas Kuhn, a partir do vínculo entre ciência e técnica moderna. Para conduzir nosso estudo, propomos a seguinte pergunta norteadora: qual o vínculo originário entre as revoluções paradigmáticas empreendidas pela ciência contemporânea e a essência da técnica moderna? O objetivo deste artigo, neste sentido, consiste em determinar como o cientista, ao se comprometer exclusivamente com a resolução de quebra-cabeças (ou enigmas), mantém inquestionados os pressupostos (...) ontológicos que oferecem condição de possibilidade para a realização da ciência. Partindo da premissa estabelecida por Gianni Vattimo de que a noção de paradigma, tal como conceituada por Kuhn, pode ser compreendida como uma forma de desvelamento, determinaremos o vínculo originário entre as realizações contemporâneas da ciência e a essência da técnica moderna. Por conseguinte, demonstraremos como a natureza, conforme ajustada aos paradigmas de pesquisa científicos, se revela como disponibilidade para a exploração técnico-científica. (shrink)

Errol Morris has claimed that Kuhn threw an ashtray at him during a dispute about some matter in the history of science. Morris also claims that Kuhn threw him out of the graduate program at Princeton for disagreeing with him. I argue that Morris’ attack on Kuhn contains some degree of hyperbole. Further, I present evidence that shows that Morris is mistaken about key events during this period. In fact, Kuhn was supportive of Morris in his pursuit of a career (...) in the history of science. (shrink)

Popper’s popular critics – Kuhn, Feyerabend, and Lakatos – replace his older, Wittgenstein-style critics, now defunct. His new critics played with the idea of criticism as beneficial, in vain search of variants of these that could better appeal to the public. Some of their criticism of Popper is valid but marginal for the dispute about rationality. He was Fallibilist; they hedged about it. He viewed learning from experience as learning from error; they were unclear about it. His view resembles Freud’s (...) reality principle; they hedged about this too, as they defended the stupid idea of constructive criticism. He stressed his criticism of the view of science as inductive; they endorsed it. They differed from him significantly regarding their intended readers: he had addressed those who readily admit criticism and his popular critics addressed those who find it hard to admit openly that criticism upsets them somewhat. Current popular criticism of Popper’s ideas shows yet again the logical relation between the critical attitude and liberalism: liberalism without critically mindedness is permissible, scarcely the other way around. Hence, we better read the objection that Popper’s popular critics have launched against him not as criticism proper, but as somewhat reasonable protest against his use of the highest standards in his relentless advocacy of liberalism and of criticism in his valuation of science and of democracy as joint. (shrink)

Inspired by the work of Kuhn, we might want to develop an account of science that explains how it is that while much of science involves the investigation of a world as articulated by a paradigm, the scientist is nevertheless an observer and rational interpreter of a mind-independent world that does not change its character over time. Kuhn himself recognizes that there is a challenge here that he does not know how to meet. I argue that progress can be made (...) on this challenge by carefully examining and criticizing Kuhn’s account of deliberation in science. Inspired by certain views about Gestalt psychology and examples such as the duck/rabbit picture, Kuhn takes deliberation in science to be a consequence of seeing things a certain way, rather than rational deliberation in science making new ways of seeing things possible. I argue that the most serious problems of Kuhn’s view of science stem from this fact, and that we can free ourselves from these problems by not following Kuhn here. In particular, I argue using material from Hanson and Peirce that we should think of the revolutionary scientist as being revolutionary not merely in virtue of seeing things in a new way, but rather for showing – typically through painstaking deliberation – that certain conjectures connected with new ways of seeing the world are reasonable This makes coming to see the world differently a deliberative process that is importantly unlike seeing a rabbit/duck picture differently. Such a way of thinking allows us to view the articulation of a new paradigm as a deliberative process that does not take some paradigm or other for granted, but rather as a deliberative process that interrogates existing orthodoxy for its suitability to survive into the next paradigm. The result is a view of science that maintains much of what is important to Kuhn, but departs from him where his view is least convincing. (shrink)

T. Kuhn’s theory of scientific revolutions has repeatedly been the subject of criticism. It is important to note that Kuhn pays very limited attention to the phenomenon of the scientific revolution itself, comparing the revolution either with a religious conversion or with a gestalt switch. Such comparisons, however, are very superficial. This paper outlines a new understanding of the scientific revolution as a result of the resonance of the intellectual trends of the early modern period. It was the quasi-simultaneous action (...) of various factors that led to revolutionary changes in natural philosophy, which, in turn, gave rise to the actual scientific revolution. In addition, the article shows that the Copernican Revolution cannot be described within the model of scientific revolution developed by T. Kuhn. Ptolemy’s theory was mathematically constructed so that it could not make inaccurate predictions of planetary motion, because – as we are now clear – the function characterizing the trajectory of planetary motion was actually represented as a Fourier series. The Copernican revolution was not a Kuhn-type scientific revolution, nor was it caused by the empirical failures of Ptolemaic astronomy. Events unfolded according to a different scheme. Copernicus set out to carry out the principle of the uniform circular motion of the planets more consistently than had been done in Ptolemy’s theory, at the same time presenting to this theory those requirements of an aesthetic and methodological order, which the cognitively fragmented system of Ptolemy, for all its flexibility, could not satisfy and, by the conditions of its creation, could not satisfy. In addition, the article shows that Copernicus, in constructing his heliocentric theory, was essentially seeking answers to the challenges that Alberti’s artificial perspective and Nicholas of Cusa’s theological speculation posed to the visual experience in the sixteenth century. (shrink)

Thomas Kuhn, dans la Structure des révolutions scientifiques, décrit les révolutions scientifiques comme des changements dans la vision scientifique du monde. Or, ce changement de vision du monde semble trouver une partie de ses racines dans la psychologie des formes. La Gestaltpsychologie a permis de remettre en cause certaines conceptions classiques de la psychologie issues de l’empirisme du xviiie siècle et par là même de penser les changements de perception non comme des changements d’interprétation, mais comme des renversements d’une structure (...) à une autre. Ces changements visuels de forme sont particulièrement bien exemplifiés dans les figures ambiguës sur lesquelles Kuhn s’appuie pour analyser le passage d’un paradigme à autre, bien que les gestaltistes, comme Köhler, aient rejeté l’hypothèse selon laquelle il serait possible de « voir » directement une signification. Reste à savoir si ces Gestalt-switches ne concernent pas davantage les historiens des sciences que les scientifiques eux-mêmes. (shrink)

In this paper, we analyze the debate between the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis in light of the concept of incommensurability developed by Thomas Kuhn. In order to do so, first we briefly present both the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Then, we clarify the meaning and interpretations of incommensurability throughout Kuhn’s works, concluding that the version of this concept deployed in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is the best suited to the analysis of scientific disputes. (...) After discussing incommensurability in Kuhn’s works, we address the question of whether the Modern Synthesis and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis can be considered semantically, methodologically, and ontologically incommensurable, concluding that they can. Finally, we discuss three problems that arise from such a conclusion: firstly, what are the consequences of incommensurability; secondly, which mode of scientific change better explains this current dispute in evolutionary biology; and thirdly, whether rational theory comparison is possible given incommensurability. We suggest that the main consequence of incommensurability is profound disagreement, that the kind of scientific change that better explains the current dispute between the MS and the EES may be scientific specialization, and that incommensurability does not preclude rational theory comparison. (shrink)

"La struttura delle rivoluzioni scientifiche", dopo più di mezzo secolo dalla sua pubblicazione, è ancora in grado di offrire un contributo alla pratica filosofica? In questo articolo, attraverso i concetti peirceani di Abito, Abduzione e Verità, si propone una lettura pragmaticista del testo di Kuhn che intende rilanciare un fecondo confronto, ancora poco considerato, tra i due filosofi.

Kuhn’s talk of “world change through revolutions” has mostly been met with perplexity. What is it really that Kuhn wants to express in this strange way? I will first review what Kuhn exactly says on this topic. Next, I show that the world change talk is at least not inconsistent and has some initial plausibility. Then I will discuss whether “world change through revolutions” should be replaced by “change of world view”. This will show that “world change through revolutions” is (...) motivated by a strictly non-presentist historiographic stance. However, Kuhn’s intended message can also be expressed in a philosophically much less provocative way. (shrink)

One of the elements of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions not only confused his readers but even Kuhn himself, namely, his talk about world change. In my earlier work, I have tackled the question of Kuhn’s metaphysics from a viewpoint that was informed by Kant’s critical theoretical philosophy. Useful as this may be, in this chapter I will try a different approach. I will focus on the fact that Kuhn acted mainly as a reflective historian when he wrote Structure. Thus, (...) he reflected on what sort of image of science the appropriately pursued historiography of science would present to him. In this chapter, I try to reconstruct the experiences of the historian of science, who is somehow driven to talk about world change as something correlated with scientific revolutions, and want to find out whether Kuhn’s world change talk can be made plausible. (shrink)

This book offers an original philosophical perspective on exemplarity. Inspired by Wittgenstein’s later work and Derrida’s theory of deconstruction, it argues that examples are not static entities but rather oscillate between singular and universal moments. There is a broad consensus that exemplary cases mediate between singular instances and universal concepts or norms. In the first part of the book, Mácha contends that there is a kind of différance between singular examples and general exemplars or paradigms. Every example is, in part, (...) also an exemplar, and vice versa. Furthermore, he develops a paracomplete approach to the logic of exemplarity, which allows us to say of an exemplar of X neither that it is an X nor that it is not an X. This paradox is structurally isomorphic to Russell’s paradox and can be addressed in similar ways. In the second part of the book, Mácha presents four historical studies that exemplify the ideas developed in the first part. This part begins with Plato’s Forms, understood as standards/paradigms, before considering Kant’s theory of reflective judgment as a general epistemological account of exemplarity. This is then followed by analyses of Hegel’s conceptual moment of particularity and Kuhn’s concept of paradigm. The book concludes by discussing the speculative hypothesis that all our knowledge is based on paradigms, which, following the logic of exemplarity, are neither true nor false. (shrink)

The article based on Kuhn’s paradigmatic approach and Lakatos’ methodology of scientific research programmes, analyses certain aspects of selected cognitive functions of religous beliefs. Our approach is based on the search for angalogy between scientific theories on one hand and systems of religious beliefs on the other hand. Contemporary philosophy of science demonstrates that scientific models are the products of creative analogous immagination, data are theory-laden, theories as a whole are resistent to falsification and it is hard (if at all) (...) to find reliable criterions for the selection of a paradigm. These «subjective features» are more evident within religion, since a wider range of models, greater impact of interpretations on data, greater arduousness in regard to the commitment to a paradigm and more ambiguity in the process of the selection of a paradigm, exist in this area. However, with each of these features, I see the difference between science and religion in their degree and not in absolute contrast. (shrink)

This book contains the text of Thomas Kuhn's unfinished book, The Plurality of Worlds: An Evolutionary Theory of Scientific Development, which Kuhn himself described as "a return to the central claims of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, and the problems that it raised but did not resolve." The Plurality of Worlds is preceded by two related texts that Kuhn publicly delivered but never published in English: his paper "Scientific Knowledge as a Historical Product" and his Shearman Memorial Lectures, "The Presence (...) of Past Science." The book opens with an introduction by the editor that describes the origins and structure of The Plurality of Worlds, and sheds light on its central philosophical problems. Kuhn's aims in his last writings are bold. He sets out to develop an empirically grounded theory of meaning that would allow him to make sense of both the possibility of historical understanding and the inevitability of incommensurability between past and present science. Moreover, he intends to show that incommensurability is fully compatible with a robust notion of a real world that science investigates, with the rationality of scientific belief change, and with the idea that scientific development is progressive. This is a must-read follow-up to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, one of the most important books of the twentieth century. (shrink)

In the early 1960s, American philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn contributed to a “crisis of rationality” with his hypothesis that science develops by means of paradigm shifts. He challenged the positivist concept of cumulative and continuous scientific progress. According to Kuhn, the relation between two succeeding scientific traditions ‘separated by a scientific revolution’ is characterized by conceptual incommensurability that constrains the interpretation of science as a cumulative, steadily progressing enterprise. Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy was heavily criticized by German-American biologist Ernst Mayr (...) as unapplicable to the history of biology. Mayr, one of the most outstanding evolutionary biologists of the 20th century and a “co-architect” of the so-called Modern Synthesis (contemporary Darwinism), published extensively on the history and philosophy of biology as he thought that theoretical biology cannot progress without proper philosophy of science. Being convinced of the progressive development of Darwinism, Mayr pointed out that Kuhn’s concept of scientific revolutions does not reflect conceptual changes in evolutionary biology. Here we summarize Mayr’s critiques of Kuhn and, based on our own research, take Mayr’s side in the controversy between two great thinkers. (shrink)

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn expounded his main beliefs on the nature of science in a way that seemed for him, at least for a while, definitive. Yet, his writings before and after Structure, a significant part of them unpublished, do not support the claim that Structure exhausted those aspects of science and its development Kuhn had planned to entertain. Philosophical issues of scientific development attracted his attention a decade before a first draft of Structure was finished and (...) around 8 years before he first started to write the first chapter. As a Harvard junior fellow, Kuhn explored those issues for the first time. Similarly, when he considered that his historiographical work on the archival and oral sources of quantum mechanics and on the history of the old quantum theory had been finished, he turned his attention again to philosophical aspects of scientific development from a new point of view. In this chapter, I shall try to show that the background to that new point of view was as old as his oldest texts on philosophy of science. That shall be one of my main goals in this paper. (shrink)

In his paper, “Kuhn, Coherentism and Perception,” Howard Sankey shows that Kuhn’s epistemology does not fit squarely in the coherentist framework, though some aspects of his theory are akin to that position. Sankey examines and then criticizes a previous work by Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen that argues that Kuhn’s work fits in well with a coherentist approach and with a realistic position in which the correspondence theory of truth is still defensible. I will not examine Kuukkanen’s argument here. I will only comment (...) on Sankey’s qualifications on Kuhn’s alleged coherentism. In the first section I shall add some more details to Kuhn’s relation to the concept of “the given” that reinforce Sankey’s doubts concerning the thesis that the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions fits in with a coherentist account of scientific knowledge—though I also agree with Sankey (and Kuukannen) that a study of coherentist ingredients in Kuhn’s epistemology would bring insight. Even so, labeling Kuhn’s epistemological views as either foundationalist or coherentist goes beyond his original point of view. I shall devote the second section of this commentary to argue in favor of this thesis on the basis of an unpublished lecture by Kuhn in which he discusses his convictions in the theory of knowledge—which agree with his attack to convergent views of scientific progress —and their connection to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s On Certainty. (shrink)

In this article, I discuss the criticisms raised against Thomas Kuhn’s Black-Body Theory. These criticisms concern two issues: how to understand Planck’s position with regards to the quantization of energy in 1901, and how to understand the book’s relation to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Both criticisms, I argue, concern the notion of a paradigm: the first concerns how Boltzmann acted as an exemplar for Planck, and the second whether the book provides a paradigm change. I will then argue that (...) both criticisms presume a conceptualization of paradigms that does not align well with Kuhn’s conceptualization of it in both Structure and later work: they assume, more specifically, that sharing a paradigm presupposes sharing an interpretation of it, and that paradigm changes are essentially identical to gestalt switches. On the basis of this, I will then argue that the criticisms are misguided, that Kuhn’s position regarding Planck’s work is in fact quite close to the indetermination-view developed by some of his critics, and that the book fits Structure quite well. In conclusion, I will then reflect on how the narrative provided in Black-Body Theory connects with Kuhn’s views on the relation between history and philosophy of science. (shrink)

Thomas Kuhn dengan konsep revolusi ilmiahnya memiliki karakteristik pemikiran dan model filsafat baru dalam hal sejarah lahirnya ilmu pengetahuan dan filsafat sains serta peranan sejarah ilmu pengetahuan dalam mengkonstruksi ataupun merekonstruksi munculnya ilmu pengetahuan baru. Bagi Thomas Kuhn sejarah ilmu pengetahuan merupakan starting point dalam mengkaji permasalahan fundamental dalam epistemologi keilmuan karena sains pada dasarnya selalu ditandai dengan kuatnya paradigma serta revolusi ilmiah setelahnya. Fase inilah yang diistilahkan Thomas Kuhn sebagai fase sejarah lahirnya ilmu pengetahuan baru, dimulai dengan normal science, (...) kemudian terjadi anomaly dan crisis, setelah itu barulah muncul revolusi ilmiah sebagai bentuk lahirnya ilmu pengetahuan baru. Pemikiran Thomas Kuhn tersebut dapat dikontekstualisasikan dengan pengembangan keilmuan Islam dengan tujuan membangun keterbukaan pemikiran keislaman terhadap anomali dan crisis serta munculnya revolusi dalam ilmu keislaman sehingga memotivasi munculnya paradigma baru di ranah keilmuan Islam. Berbagai pendekatan dalam studi Islam dapat digunakan seperti pendekatan normatif, historis, sosiologis, antropologis dan pendekatan lainnya dalam rangka membumikan Islam menjadi agama yang rahmatan lil alamin. Kata Kunci : Paradigma, Revolusi Ilmiah, Thomas Kuhn. (shrink)

This is a draft of a book review of Brad Wray's book Kuhn's Intellectual Path.

This is a book review of Brad Wray (ed.) Interpreting Kuhn: Critical Essays.

This book reflects the most recent research devoted to a systematized perspective and a critical (re)construction of previous theoretical attempts of explaining, justifying and continuing Kuhn’s ingenious hypothesis in arts. Hofstadter, Clignet and Habermas revealed to be the most engaged scholars in solving this aesthetic "puzzled-problem". In this context, the structural similarities between science and arts are attentively evaluated, thus satisfying an older concern attributed to the historical Kuhn-Kubler dispute, extensively commented along the pages of this book. How can we (...) track the matter of rationality and truth in art and aesthetics, inspired by scientific perspectives? Are artistic styles similar to scientific paradigms? Are we entitled to pursue paradigms and masterpieces as rational models in science, respectively in arts? On what possible grounds can we borrow from science notions such as progress and predictability, in the study of the evolution of art and its aesthetic backgrounds? Are the historical dynamics of science and art affected by political factors in the same manner? This book will be of interest to philosophers, but also to historians of science and historians of art alike in the reassessment it provides of recent debates on reshaping the art world using Kuhn's "paradigm shift". (shrink)

The purpose of this article is to clarify the importance of questions about the nature of reality for understanding the basic ideas of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science. For Kuhn, the topic of reality is not "too metaphysical" and therefore undesirable, as for the neo-positivists, although in a certain sense it is “premature” and will emerge later in the discussions of realists and anti-realists in full measure. The ontological meaning of the problem of the relationship between science and reality appears (...) in Kuhn’s works as a side topic of his epistemological research. The first part of the paper analyzes Kuhn’s statements about reality and determines his ontological position; the second part considers how the problematic of reality was clarified in his polemic with his critics, who either, like K. Hempel, turn Kuhn to clarify some points of his ideas about reality, or, like M. Masterman, give their interpretation of his ideas, with which he agrees. The third part of the paper shows how Kuhn’s anti-realism is reflected in his epistemological and methodological understanding of objectivity and truth in science. The conclusion of the paper is that Kuhn’s epistemological skepticism is becoming increasingly evident to himself and his critics, and his anti-realist ontological position becomes apparent against this background. (shrink)

The paper deals with Kuhn’s and Lakatos’s ideas related to the so-called “historical turn” and its application to the philosophy of mathematics. In the first part the meaning of the term “postpositivism” is specified. If we lack such a specification we can hardly discuss the philosophy of science that comes “after postpositivism”. With this end in view, the metaphor of “generations” in the philosophy of science is used. It is proposed that we restrict the use of the term “post-positivism” to (...) two and only two philosophical “generations”: the one to which Kuhn, Lakatos and Feyerabend belong, and the previous “generation” to which Wittgenstein, Polanyi, Popper and Quine (as well as the major part of logical positivists) belong. From this point of view, Bloor, Latour, Pickering, Daston and Galison belong to the “third generation” which represents the philosophy of science “after post-positivism”. The characteristic feature of post-positivism is the combination of decisive impact of logical positivism and its severe criticism. This combination inevitably makes post-positivism a transitional form in the philosophy of science. In the second part the contribution of the “big four” of post-positivist philosophers (Popper, Kuhn, Lakatos, and Feyerabend) to the radical change in the philosophy of mathematics in the second half of the 20th century is analyzed. Primarily, they shifted philosophical interest from the logical analysis of formal systems to the historical dynamics of informal mathematics. They also reconsidered the sharp opposition between mathematics and the physical sciences. However, the transitional character of their philosophy manifests itself both in their treatment of mathematics and their way of understanding history. On the one hand, their “heritage” is ambiguous, on the other hand, it opens new perspectives. Neither Kuhn, nor Lakatos, have eliminated completely the methodological barrier positing the fundamental heterogeneity of mathematics and natural science. Neither Lakatos, nor Kuhn, adhered to the viewpoint of relentless historicism. Nevertheless, it is their work that has made these options open for today’s historians and philosophers of science, even for philosophers of mathematics. (shrink)

I respond to Scerri’s recent reply to my claim that there was a scientific revolution in chemistry in the early twentieth Century. I grant, as Scerri insists, that there are significant continuities through the change about which we are arguing. That is so in all scientific revolutions. But I argue that the changes were such that they constitute a Kuhnian revolution, not in the classic sense of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, but in the sense of Kuhn’s mature theory, developed (...) in the 1980s and early 1990s. (shrink)

One of the key elements of science education and teaching is to accurately determine the nature and characteristics of science. Determinations about the nature of science affect science education methods in many ways. Those involved in science education and science teaching agree that the nature of science should be taught explicitly. Thomas Kuhn's theses (paradigm, normal science, scientific revolutions, incommensurability, puzzle solving, theory choice, discovery and justification distinction) on the structure and nature of science, which he put forward as a (...) result of his studies including the history of science, philosophy of science and sociology of science, have been frequently referenced sources in the field of science education and teaching. Accordingly, in the article, the claim of the logical positivist understanding of science is discussed within the framework of Kuhn's views, with the thought that it does not reflect the nature of science. The main argument of the article is that Kuhn's determinations on science and the nature of science emphasize the developing, transforming and changing structure of science and thus he transforms the understanding of the nature of science that is often used in science education. (shrink)

Fen eğitimi ve öğretiminin anahtar unsurlarından bir tanesi bilimin doğasının ve özelliklerinin doğru bir şekilde tespit edilmesidir. Bilimin doğasına yönelik tespitler fen eğitimi yöntemlerini birçok açıdan etkilemektedir. Fen eğitimi ve fen öğretimi ile ilgili olan kişiler bilimin doğasının açık bir şekilde öğretilmesi gerektiğini kabul etmektedir. Thomas Kuhn’un bilim tarihi, bilim felsefesi ve bilim sosyolojisi alanlarını içeren incelemeleri neticesinde ileri sürdüğü bilimin yapısına, işleyişine ve doğasına yönelik tezleri (paradigma, olağan bilim, bilimsel devrimler, eşölçülemezlik, bulmaca çözme, kuram seçimi, keşif ve gerekçelendirme ayrımı) (...) fen eğitimi ve öğretimi alanında sıklıkla başvurulan kaynaklar olmuştur. Bu doğrultuda makalede mantıkçı pozitivist bilim anlayışının bilimin nesnel, evrensel, kesin gerçekleri ortaya çıkaran, sosyal-kültürel değerlerden ve ön yargılardan bağımsız, bilimsel bilginin birikimsel bir şekilde ilerlediği yönündeki iddiası bilimin gerçek doğasını yansıtamadığı düşüncesiyle Kuhn’un görüşleri çerçevesinde tartışılmaktadır. Makalenin temel savı Kuhn’un bilime ve bilimin doğasına yönelik tespitlerinin bilimin gelişen, dönüşen ve değişen yapıdaki gerçek doğasına vurgu yaptığı ve böylece fen eğitiminde sıklıkla başvurulan bilimin doğasına yönelik kavrayışı dönüştürdüğüdür. (shrink)

Neste artigo, meu objetivo é analisar de que maneira o cientista, no âmbito das Ciências Naturais, é educado para assimilar, aplicar e articular um determinado paradigma na solução dos problemas de ciência normal, sem colocá-lo (o paradigma) criticamente em questão, assim qualquer erro que venha a ocorrer na pesquisa é atribuído ao cientista e não ao paradigma. Pretendo também, mostrar que o caráter dogmático do paradigma não permite que o cientista desenvolva pesquisas visando novas descobertas que não se enquadrem nos (...) parâmetros ditados pelo mesmo, tal atitude exige total aceitação e comprometimento da comunidade científica para com o paradigma aceito, gerando assim, uma espécie de profissão de fé na capacidade do paradigma em resolver os quebra-cabeças que se apresentam na prática da ciência normal. (shrink)