Thomas Kuhn: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions


Recommended Posts

Posted

Thomas Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions was originally published in 1962, some three years after Popper’s Logic of Scientific Discovery. In terms of genre, it joins the philosophy of science to the philosophy of history. Kuhn accomplishes much here: he underscores the far-reaching significance of conceptualisation, dismantles the popular-level notion that science is a cumulative discipline, introduces us to ‘paradigm shifts’ (later ‘disciplinary matrixes’), humanises science, and much else besides.

The work is searching, profound, and even humbling. It’s to be read, mulled over, and read anew. Moreover, as a welcome bonus, the prose itself is also uncommonly good. So many books today, though they are full of sound info, are just poorly written. Writing qua writing is on the decline. A tactless journalese seems the norm. In Kuhn, howbeit, we find prose thick and rich, yet not belaboured. Good stuff.

At around 200 pages, it’s fairly slim. And it requires neither technical background nor technical vocabulary. It’s much more accessible than, say, Canguilhem or Polanyi. So, it’s a great book to give to thoughtful friends; friends of the ingenuous science-worshipping type would particularly benefit. Indeed, put back into circulation, it could help rout the headlong rush of scientism.

Now, plenty of forum members have read the book, I'm sure. So, what do you guys think?

Posted

Yes. I know this book well. I strongly prefer The Copernican Revolution by the same author. A bit more rigorous. SSR certainly contains some fine prose, but the lack of precision in some of the presented arguments can be a bit frustrating.

I would suggest Lakatos as a next step. Or perhaps Feyerabend for some levity.

Posted

Yes. I know this book well. I strongly prefer The Copernican Revolution by the same author. A bit more rigorous. SSR certainly contains some fine prose, but the lack of precision in some of the presented arguments can be a bit frustrating.

Thanks for the input, khomeinist. Yes, the lack of precision, as you say, was one of the issues that Kuhn had to address in later editions. Several key terms - some of them neologisms - are used ambiguously. Still, I don't find that it detracts too much from the work. Many philosophical texts today - in the Anglo-American tradition, at least - are written with such analytic rigour that they're a chore to read. The readability of Structures is one of its strengths, I think.

Haven't read the book on Copernicus, though I'm certainly open to more Kuhn.

I would suggest Lakatos as a next step. Or perhaps Feyerabend for some levity.

The latter I'm familiar with. But I'm not at all well-read within the philosophy of science. My interest in science literature waxes and wanes . . . mostly wanes. Popular science books are almost invariably full of bad philosophising. And learned science texts are written in another language. ;)

Posted

Read it as an undergrad and remember it had quite an impact on my thinking at the time. But that was many moons ago...

It's still read by undergraduate philosophy majors. :)

Posted

Thanks for the thoughts on this book. It's been a while since I read it (a long while) and I should get a copy of it. Borrowed it in university so...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.