The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Rating:
Summary: Science, Its History, and the Its Prospects for Objectivity
Review: Kuhn's work in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions basically introduced the history of science to philosophers of science. Slowly but surely, they came to see the philosophy of science as something more than applied formal logic. But as someone who doesn't work in philosophy of science, I find this book fascinating for other reasons. The most important reason is that this book, like much good philosophy of science, works for me as a sort of applied epistemology since Kuhn takes up abstract philosophical arguments and applies them to particular episodes in the history of science.

Of course, as most everyone knows, Kuhn's account of the history of the sciences revolves around the notion of a scientific paradigm. A paradigm, in the most important sense, is a set of standards, practices, and theories shared by a group of scientists. So a paradigm includes all the following things: the central theories of the relevant science, important experimental results and techniques, guidelines concerning which problems are and are not important, standards of evidence against which theories are to be judged, etc. Through the reading of textbooks, studying with proponents of the paradigm, and doing labwork of certain sorts, individual scientists come to accept the elements of the paradigm.

When there is a regnant paradigm in a particular science, what Kuhn calls 'normal science' occurs. Normal science primarily involves puzzle-solving, which is a matter of attempting to solve the problems the current paradigm tells us are important and solving them in ways consistent with the methods and theories of that paradigm. Normal science is not a wholly stable enterprise, though, for it is always the case that anomalies, problems the paradigm seems unable to solve, develop as the paradigm is applied to new phenomena. Isolated anomalies are usually ignored, on the assumption that further development of the paradigm will lead to their solution. But not all are solved even in the long run, and eventually there are enough of them that working scientists begin to take notice. This is when the science enters a crisis period, when the once-obvious truth of regnant paradigm begins to seem less obvious to many scientists. Now scientists begin to propose new paradigms, and some win converts. When one of the new paradigms proves able to solve many of the glaring anomalies that plagued the previous one, most scientists will switch over to the new paradigm and those who do not will eventually die off. Following this revolutionary paradigm switch, there is another period of normal science as working scientists begin applying the new paradigm. This process, according to Kuhn, is probably an endless one.

And it is the details of Kuhn's account of paradigm change that appears to result in certain problems for the objectivity of science. In particular, the nature of scientific revolutions seems to preclude a gradual progress of the sciences towards the truth about the world; or, at least, it does not allow us to guarantee that such progress will occur. Why? Because it seems paradigm change cannot be based on an objective consideration of the evidence for and against particular paradigms.

The central worry about the objectivity of science arises from what Kuhn calls the 'incommensurability' of different paradigms. There are at least two distinct worries here. First, there is what we might call 'standard incommensurability'. When the accepted paradigms change, the accepted standards of a good scientific theory change--different experiments are conducted, different evidence is taken to be conclusive, and old problems are ignored. So accepting up a new paradigm means you're bound to see that paradigm as better justified than its competitors; indeed, it means you're bound to have real trouble seeing what competitors take to be evidence for their preferred paradigms.

But, one might wonder, isn't the objectivity of science assured through reliance on observations that can be shared by different scientists and on experiments that can be repeated? Not so, Kuhn argues, because the theory-ladenness of observation undermines the possibility of such a theory-neutral set of empirical data. We don't test theories against raw observations; we test them against observations that are interpreted in light of the theories we hold. What theory you hold partially determines what you see, and so it partially determines what you take to be observational evidence. So proponents of different paradigms will see different things in the same experiments and observations, and thus there isn't any theory-neutral body of empirical evidence to which we can appeal in determining which of the competing paradigms should be adopted.

There is a second form of incommensurability, viz. meaning incommensurability, and it leads to similar problems. Kuhn accepts a holistic semantics of scientific terms according to which the terms used by scientists acquire their meaning from the network of theory in which they are used. The meaning of a scientific terms--like, say, 'gravity'--is determined by the paradigm in which it is being used. Consequently, when paradigms change, so do the meanings of the terms employed by scientists. So, for instance, the word 'gravity' has a different meaning in Newtonian physics than it has in current relativity theory. This has a significant result for the nature of debate between proponents of different paradigms: namely, that proponents of different paradigms are talking past one another. There is a misleading appearance of agreement and disagreement here, but proponents of different theories really can't argue with one another about the same phenomena since their words have different meanings.

The consequences of these different forms of incommensurability can seem pretty radical. First, standard incommensurability seems to show that paradigm change cannot be based on a consideration of evidence; and second, meaning incommensurability seems to show that a proponent of one paradigm cannot even understand the theories involved in another paradigm. The process of paradigm change, then, comes to seem necessarily non-rational. Scientists come to hold the paradigms they do for psychological or sociological reasons, and not because of a careful consideration of the evidence for and against the various available paradigms. And if this is the case, it's not at all clear why we should think that the history of science involves a trend towards a discovery of the truth about the nature of the world around us.

Rating:
Summary: A classic which will stay with us.
Review: This is a classic in both philosophy and history of science written by a practising scientist who at first was skeptical of any such analysis of science itself. For many, even today, who have had no contact with the philosophical and historical investigation of the development of science and scientific theories over the centuries, mainly since Newton and Descarte, science remains the epitomy of the objective, value free way of looking at the world through theories which are supposed to make sense of the world as it is perceived. Kuhn, himself an avid supporter of the scientific viewpoint, came to investigate the subject of science itself through interactions with the historians and philosophers of his time. He then carried on a thorough investigation of the development of theories in science and produced his influential idea of paradigm shift.

There is much to recommend this book it's well written and his ideas are well supported by historical evidence, often by the notes of the scientists involved themselves. In addition, rather than being a simple construction of paradigm shift, Kuhn elaborates and considers all manner of influence on scientists' ideas such as subjective notions of ideas on nature eg philosophy, religion etc. At times these points are not made forcefully and can be missed. Often the criticisms of his work are due to a casual reading of his book which do not note his deep analysis. Though a good book and worth every bit of its praise, it is not a book read for enjoyment unlike, for example, Feyerabend's "Against Method". I got through it and appreciated its worth but like one other reviewer mentioned I was looking forward to reading something else. Certainly not that much of a downside though.

A classic which will stay with us.

Rating:
Summary: This book makes you think, and that's good
Review: Unfortunately, the author, undoubtedly influenced by philosopher Immanuel Kant, tries to use reason against itself in a most disgraceful fashion. There is an element of truth in his theory- times of identifying, testing, and accepting new theories are times of upheaval and quite confusing for many. Unfortunately, Kuhn fails to recognize that there exists an objective reality that does not bend or shift to agree to whatever mankind's consensus opinion is at the time. The world was not flat when many supposed it was. The earth did not revolve around the sun when many supposed it did.

Fundamentally, Kuhn fails to accept the difference between the scientifically proven and the scientifically likely. Nothing that was scientifically proven has ever been disproved. Often what happens is the context in which a theory is known true is found to be limited. For example, Newtonian laws of motion are as true to today as they were in Newton's times. The difference is that today, we know that at speeds or levels of precision unknown in Newton's times, relativity adds an effect to alter the equation. Newton's laws of motion were never proven in that context. Only an assumption that they applied there was disproved.

Ultimately, Kuhn adds more confusion than clarity with this work, as is the case with any attack on reason. For a much better analysis of truth and epistemology, I'd highly recommend Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant
Review: Kuhn, doesn't need any more appreciation (at least not from me), and there's more than enough in the other reviews, so what I'll try to provide is a brief synopsis of how the book outlines Kuhn's radical theory.In many ways, the theory is still radical, because people still want to believe that science marks progress, and moves unerringly from one theory to the next, better one. What Kuhn did, was decimate the idea that the 'progress' of science was a steady movement towards the truth, and the never articulated preconception that the "truth" itself (or if you prefer the better theory) was self-evident and would be recognized on sight.Illustrated with hilarious examples of the manner in which the most scientific of all sciences, Physics, has floundered about over the centuries, the book makes its point very forcefully. There is no science disembodied from scientists, there is no scientific theory that is not profoundly influenced by the scientific and social milieu it finds itself in. Kuhn isn't saying science is completely divorced from "reality" or "truth", the Structure of Scientific Revolutions just looks very closely at major and minor scientific "advances" of hte previous centuries and finds no evidence that suggest the dynamic of scientific progress is smooth.

Kuhn was a physicist, but gave that up to work in History of Science. This book is rather compact for a text that would so radically alter its entire discipline (and many others besides), but that is probably what gives it the broad appeal it has. It's not a "difficult" book, nor is it unduly academic. It's certainly not going to be a cake-walk, Kuhn's conception is sufficiently strange to make demands on the reader (as is his language). But the entire exercise is well worth the effort. When you get through the 150 odd pages of this text, you wonder why it wasn't said before. Then you wonder whether everything we so firmly believe stands on as shaky ground. Like the man said, you must read this book.

Rating:
Summary: A must-read for anyone who wishes to be called a scientist
Review: In this book, Thomas Kuhn manages to convey fundamental concepts that will take you a step closer to understanding what science really is.

Popular wisdom will tell you that science is a cumulative process by which scientists improve progressively on previous knowledge. In contrast, Kuhn will tell you that although during "normal" periods that might very well be the case, there are singular periods during which a crisis will force a whole community of scientists not only to re-invent their methods and tools, but even to rethink their interpretation of previous long standing assumptions, pushing them to discard what had previously been accepted theories in favor of new ones. Kuhn gives the name of "Scientific Revolutions" to these singular periods. Throughout the text of the book he offers several examples of scientific revolutions, most of them from the physical sciences.

Although Kuhn's ideas are conceptually simple, his involved writing style makes this book a tough reading. It almost gave me the impression that he didn't use the services of an editor at all. Part of the semantic entanglement in his original writing comes from his abuse of the word 'paradigm'. In the postscript, which was written several years after the first printing of the book, he admits to this fault and offers some remarks that help clarify most of the main points in his thesis.

You may or may not agree with all of Kuhn's ideas. Nevertheless, the widespread influence that this book has had in the philosophy of science makes it a must-read for anyone who wishes to be called a scientist.

Rating:
Summary: should be mandatory reading for grad students in all fields
Review: This book, more than any other, has changed the way that I think about scholarship. I am not even a student of the "hard" sciences (I study linguistic anthropology) and yet still found most of the concepts trenchant. By showing how the game is played, Kuhn raises important issues on how knowledge is produced, and the implications that follow. Real revolutions that propel fields forward are rarely achieved by discoveries of new data, but instead by viewing pre-existing data from novel perspectives. The implication is that while we should not abandon previous learning, part of genius is identifying and UNlearning implicit assumptions. The only criticism that I have is that Kuhn is not always clear as to whether he is writing descriptively or normatively. Nonetheless, this book is great.

Rating:
Summary: Highly Recommended for a Reason
Review: This book frequently pops up on a "Top 100" or "Best Science Book" or some other list for a reason: Mr. Kuhn was the first person to step back and look at the complex way in which science and scientific study have advanced over the course of humanity and try to put those observations forth in a logical manner. He succeeded brilliantly.

Mr. Kuhn's main point is that there are two phases of scientific discovery, "normal science" which is built on established principals, rounding out gaps in existing theories until the theories begin to unravel, at which point we have entered a period which will require a "paradigm shift". Mr. Kuhn takes the reader through multiple historical examples, the shifts in scientific thought brought about by Copernicus, Newton, Lavoisier and Einstein. His references are relevant and his thoughts are clearly put forth. The historical anecdotes are very entertaining and educational and do a solid job of reinforcing his point.

I must admit I was a bit concerned during the first chapter, it was a bit tough to make it through, but did a very good job of laying the groundwork and allowing a glimpse of the author's thought process. The second chapter, in which the author begins to define "normal science", immediately put me to rest as the author dove straight into making his point and proving his argument. The final three chapters pertaining to the Invisibility, Resolution and Progress of revolutions should be required reading for anyone who works in the sciences, and is immensely valuable to anyone working in any field. I have been surprised that there haven't been more straight on business interpretations of Kuhn's work (although there has obviously been much unreferenced piracy), as the spread of scientific thought is a very apt metaphor for the spread of business theory and product adoption.

This is a very good book and I highly recommend it, regardless of what field you work in, be it science, business or otherwise.

Rating:
Summary: How and Why Organizations/Communities Resist Change
Review: This relatively easy read while, focusing on the history of changes in scientific paradigms, really is applicable to a much wider audience. It is a recommended "must read" for anyone in the organizational facilitation or organizational development field who needs to understand how difficult it is for organizations to embrace change.
Kuhn well explains how community paradigms are formed and perpetuated, and just how difficult it is for people to accept changes to their paradigm, and why organiations facing necessary changes to their paradigm are prone to label the changes as "anomalies" so they can be discounted and avoided.

Rating:
Summary: should be mandatory reading for grad students in all fields
Review: This book, more than any other, has changed the way that I think about scholarship. I am not even a student of the "hard" sciences (I study linguistic anthropology) and yet still found most of the concepts trenchant. By showing how the game is played, Kuhn raises important issues on how knowledge is produced, and the implications that follow. Real revolutions that propel fields forward are rarely achieved by discoveries of new data, but instead by viewing pre-existing data from novel perspectives. The implication is that while we should not abandon previous learning, part of genius is identifying and UNlearning implicit assumptions. The only criticism that I have is that Kuhn is not always clear as to whether he is writing descriptively or normatively. Nonetheless, this book is great.

Rating:
Summary: Essential but agonizing
Review: This was my first book as a master's student in environmental studies. I'd heard of it. I knew it was important. As soon as I saw the reading list, I knew it was going to be the first book.

I struggled to read this book. I struggled to understand it. I struggled to read it again! Let's not kid around. No matter how exciting, innovative, enlightening, and relevant his ideas were, this was the most poorly written book I had ever been subjected to. I started looking around for help because I was drowning in the language. I was trying to grasp the concepts but flailing abuot in a sea of unfamiliar and jumbled words. As I asked around, I discovered something. Just about everyone in a science field has read his book eventually. Physicists, mathematicians, friend of a friend in a biotech lab, a friend in computer science and his wife who teaches it in a drug abuse psychology class... Everyone read this book. Everyone appreciated the revelation in this book once they understood it. Everyone found it relevant to their scientific careers.

Science doesn't take baby steps upward toward 'truth' but a series of ideas that come into consensus that are thrown out for new ones. Doing scientific projects using the same formula as everyone in your field is normal science. When the number of things the consensus can't explain pile up, someone comes up with a new idea to handle those anomaloes. There is a struggle and a new consensus forms. This is very simplified. The book was so difficult for me, as it was for just about anyone I talked to, that I don't claim to understand the ideas fully. But what I did see was relevant.

I had done a thesis in undergrad, and I realized how normal it was. I tested different treatments on plots of land. I might have learned a little tidbit but didn't change our understanding of the world. I didn't realize how insignificant my study had been.

There's so much more to his thoughts that I can not do them justice here. I think back to this book at least every quarter. If this book were not so essential, I'd give it a 1. But until Kuhn is repackaged into something more readable, all scientists are going to have to read this book for themselves. I pity eveyrone who must trudge through this book, but it is essential.