Abstract
I re-examine Kuhn’s account of scientific revolutions. I argue that the sorts of events Kuhn regards as scientific revolutions are a diverse lot, differing in significant ways. But, I also argue that Kuhn does provide us with a principled way to distinguish revolutionary changes from non-revolutionary changes in science. Scientific revolutions are those changes in science that (1) involve taxonomic changes, (2) are precipitated by disappointment with existing practices, and (3) cannot be resolved by appealing to shared standards. I argue that an important and often overlooked dimension of the Kuhnian account of scientific change is the shift in focus from theories to research communities. Failing to make this shift in perspective might lead one to think that when individual scientists change theories a scientific revolution has occurred. But, according to Kuhn, it is research communities that undergo revolutionary changes, not individual scientists. I show that the change in early modern astronomy is aptly characterized as a Kuhnian revolution.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barker P., Chen X., Andersen H. (2003). Kuhn on concepts and categorization. In: Nickles T. (eds) Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 212–245
Bird A. (2000). Thomas Kuhn. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Chen X., Barker P. (2000). Continuity through revolutions: A frame-based account of conceptual change during revolutions. Philosophy of Science (Proceedings) 67:S208–S223
Cohen I.B. (1985). Revolution in science. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Davies J.C. (1962). Toward a theory of revolution. American Sociological Review 21(1):5–19
Copernicus, N. ([1543]/1995). On the revolutions of Heavenly Spheres, translated by C. G. Wallis. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books
Dobbs B.J.T. (2000). Newton as final cause and first mover. In: Osler’s M. (eds). Rethinking the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 25–39
Gingerich, O. (1971). The mercury theory from antiquity to Kepler. Actes, 57–64.
Gingerich, O. (1973). The role of Erasmus Reinhold and the prutenic tables in the dissemination of Copernican theory. Studia Copernicana, 6, 43–62 and 123–125
Gingerich O. (1975). “Crisis” versus aesthetic in the Copernican revolution. Vistas in Astronomy 17:85–95
Greene J.C. (1971). The Kuhnian paradigm and the Darwinian revolution in natural history. In: Roller D.H.D. (eds) Perspectives in the history of science and technology. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, pp. 3–25
Gurr T.R. (1970). Why men rebel. Princeton University Press, Princeton
Heidelberger M. ([1976]/1980). Some intertheoretic relations between Ptolemean and Copernican astronomy. In G. Gutting (Ed.), Paradigms and revolutions: Applications and appraisals of Thomas Kuhn’s philosophy of science (pp. 271–283). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.
Kramnick I. (1972). Reflections on revolution: Definition and explanation in recent scholarship. History and Theory 11(1): 26–63
Kuhn T.S. (1977). Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice. In: Kuhn’s T.S. (eds). The essential tension: Selected studies in scientific tradition and change. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 320–339
Kuhn T.S. (1996). The structure of scientific revolutions (3rd ed). University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Kuhn, T. S. (2000). The road since structure: Philosophical essays, 1970–1993, with an autobiographical interview, edited by J. Conant & J. Haugeland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakatos, I. (1972). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the international colloquium in the philosophy of science, London 1965 (Vol. 4, reprinted with corrections, pp. 91–196). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laudan L. (1984). Science and values: The aims of science and their role in scientific debate. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles
Masterman M. (1970). The nature of a paradigm. In I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge: Proceedings of the international colloquium in the philosophy of science, London 1965 (Vol. 4, pp. 59–89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Mayr, E. (2004). Do Thomas Kuhn’s scientific revolutions take place? In What makes biology unique?: Considerations on the autonomy of a scientific discipline (pp. 159–169). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McMullin E. (1993). Rationality and paradigm change in science. In: Horwich P. (eds) World changes: Thomas Kuhn and the nature of science. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 55–78
Nersessian N.J. (2003). Kuhn, conceptual change, and cognitive science. In: Nickles T. (eds) Thomas Kuhn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 178–211
Shapin S. (1996). The scientific revolution. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Skocpol T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia, and China. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Tilly C., Tilly L., Tilly R. (1975). The rebellious century: 1830–1930. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Thoren V.E. (1967). An early instance of deductive discovery: Tycho Brahe’s lunar theory. Isis 58(1):19–36
Van Fraassen B.C. (2002). The empirical stance. Yale University Press, New Haven
Westfall R.S. (2000). The scientific revolution reasserted. In: Osler’s M. (eds) Rethinking the scientific revolution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 41–55
Zagorin P. (1973). Theories of revolution in contemporary historiography. Political Science Quarterly LXXXVIII(1):23–52
Wray K.B. (2005). Rethinking scientific specialization. Social Studies of Science 35(1):151–164
Wray K.B. (2003). Is science really a young man’s game?. Social Studies of Science 33(1):137–149
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wray, K.B. Kuhnian Revolutions Revisited. Synthese 158, 61–73 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9050-z
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-006-9050-z