I'm curious. Who has read Thomas Kuhn's book about science,

[pnwmom]

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions? And what did you think about it?

I read it in college and I acknowledge it had a major impact on my thinking.

[cheyanne]

1. Same here.

Wonderful book and over the years I've looked many systems through his framework.

America fits into the same paradigm.

Thesis: All men are created equal.

Set up constitution to work on this basis.

Racial equality was one of the first obvious glitches to the implementation of equality.

Attempt is made to incorporate racial equality into the system. Then, women . . .

you get the idea.

Will the great experiment actually prove the "applicability" of equal rights for all.

We're still working on it.



glad someone is still reading the book.

[alcibiades_mystery]

2. Yes - and agreed, and important work for current discussions

There are plenty of people running around here the last few days claiming that what "science" once believed is now "woo," and science is never fixed and the like. People making those claims should read works like SSR, or Quine's "Three Dogmas of Empricism" and the like (heck, Foucault's The Order of Things would be useful here as well). Each of those works provides detailed analyses and frameworks for how "science" transforms itself, but never that wildly. Kuhn's arguments about normal science, paradigmatic frameworks, and the emergence of challenges to paradigms is particularly persuasive in this regard.

I'm not particularly interested in these "woo" debates, as they often strike me as a bunch of stoned undergraduates having it out at 3am - and that's on both sides. Time would be much better spent revisiting Kuhn.

[longship]

3. It has somewhat faded since.

Two issues.

First, although Kuhn's ideas were somewhat innovative at the time, historically, they don't always hold up to scrutiny. Science is quite a bit more messy than his portrayal, not that I would minimize his work or his thinking. Neither would many of his critics. I read the book myself a couple of times back in those days.

Second, the post modernists have latched onto Kuhn, and not for either good motive or outcome. It's sad that this arguably great work ends up being used for such nefarious purpose.

Still, it is an interesting read, with some inspiring ideas. I heartily recommend it. Just don't look at it as the final word on the philosophy of science.

[pnwmom]

7. I'm willing to believe that science is messier than his portrayal.

I applaud him for showing that it isn't the neat, linear, driven-by-reason-only process many people still believe in.

[longship]

8. Indeed.

But science has the support of nature, which is the sole attribute to which it strives.

And Mother Nature is a real bitch. She does not suffer fools kindly. She scoffs at woo-woo.

[mattvermont]

4. read it as part of a Philosphy of Science

class in college 30 years ago. Also read Hopper and Kant...totally loved Kuhn at the time, but would have a hard time relaying much at this time....guess I better pick it up again

[Jim__]

5. I did. Interesting book.

I found his book, The Copernican Revolution, more interesting. It goes into great detail about the Ptolemaic system and Copernicus' view of it. I thought that the detail in that book clarified the point his was making in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

[struggle4progress]

6. I liked it.