Rating: Summary: A Simple Theme, Obscured by Academic Verbiage Review: Thomas Kuhn's basic idea is not a bad one, and probably not an entirely untrue one. Science progresses with the addition of ideas; nobody would argue with that. People whose experiments are expressly intended to shake the fabric of current science are not welcomed in the scientific community; this, too, has been brilliantly demonstrated, and is a simple result of that monstrously complex thing called human nature. Since scientific research is best conducted within the auspices of the scientific community, with its shelter, money, and so on, the most productive questions are those which are merely clarifications or better demonstrations of a recurring theme. However, occasionally an experiment will be within the realm of the establishment and will at the same time contradict it. Since the purpose of science is to approach rather than to reach the truth, no scientific theory is perfect, so such contradictions will always arise. Eventually, accomodations of these contradictions themselves contradict, and when this happens, a whole new theory is needed and will, albeit with much resistance, be adopted. This is what Kuhn refers to as a paradigm shift, and the course of his essay is intended to grapple with the implications of his theory. All of this is true. But I came up with a reasonable summary of his book in a single paragraph. Even taking into account the exploration of the subtle nuances of the theory and evidence supporting it, there is no reason why it needed to be such ridiculous size. And the reason for the uncalled-for length was that this book spent most of its time making some simple ideas seem complicated, using unnecessarily obscure words to describe certain ideas, and putting together sentences and paragraphs with similarly baffling complexity. In fact, this is such an unnecessarily difficult read, that it is almost made to seem as if appropriate object of study is the book itself instead of the idea of chains of normal science linked together by paradigm shifts, as evidenced by the outside world. It seems as if the purpose of this book is to obscure the issue rather than to illuminate it, and perhaps in the process achieve self-aggrandizement. It may just be that Kuhn was a scholar, lost in his own little world, and too detached to make a connection with the rest of us. I realize that many people have understood and enjoyed Kuhn, so I do not deny that such a reaction is possible. However, I have a great deal of admiration for men of the stamina and courage necessary have this reaction (of course I don't mean this seriously). Because I believe that the pursuit of knowledge is primarily a quest of personal fulfillment and enjoyment, I have no respect for people like Kuhn who make easy things difficult and fun things grueling, nor for the academic community which nourishes Kuhn's attitude.
Rating: Summary: Interesting and Clever Review: Kuhn writes a good one, but it is a little heavy for anyone who doesn't focus well to get through it. The ideas in the book are are indeed themselves revolutionary and really make you look at science in a whole new way.
Rating: Summary: pass Review: I'm sorry, but it seems to me illogical, inconsistent, and hypocritical to say in the same breath that this book is good because it has been "influential" and yet it is not to be blamed for "New Age fuzzies usurping [its] terminology". Either it should be judged for its influence or it shouldn't. I say it shouldn't, but YOU have to say one way or the other; you can't have it BOTH ways. We are also admonished to make allowances for its age: "You had to be there." Possibly, but it seems to me after a certain elapsed time, you can pretty much get away with saying this about anything. As it happens, I am not at all impressed by this book's content. Its ideas seem to me stale, simple-minded, and just plain wrong-headed. That isn't why I've given it one star only though. I've given it one star only because it is very, very, very clumsily written. I don't care who the author is or what he has to say; if he can't write, he shouldn't be published.
Rating: Summary: A Different Perspective on Kuhn Review: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" for me was an amazing read. I took it somewhat differently. The structural aspects were riveting and honest (to the dismay of Kuhn's contemporaries)but for me, Kuhn's honesty showed through in that the faith that modern society puts in science is not as solid as we think. We are currently in the peaceful period of "normal science". It was like this before we learned that the earth was round, it was this way before we learned that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, et cetera, et cetera. Kuhn believed that we had a need for this structure, and would hold fast to it until we were virtually forced to accept a new paradigm. Kuhn reinforced my faith in God and His creation of the world, Kuhn's openness allows me to easily confront the evolutionary, anti-God, establishment that exists in modern(current) historical interpretation of observation.
Rating: Summary: The Myth of Linear Progression Review: I'm not sure if it is still the case, but there was a time when Kuhn's book was _the_ most frequently cited book in scientific literature. With all respect to my fellow reviewers, it might be a tad bit arrogant to dismiss such a book as "puerile." Before Kuhn, we were taught in school that scientific progress was linear, that it was an unending progression of refinements and developments, with one "truth" leading to the next "truth." Kuhn's insights including pointing out that such a linear progression was mostly a lie. His thesis was that the major developments in science were mostly revolutionary. That some "truths" turned out to be false. Astronomy was revolutionized by Galielo and Copernicus, and man was divested from the center of the universe. Physics was revolutionized by Newton. Biology and Darwin. It didn't hurt that plate tectonics came along shortly after Kuhn published, and Kuhn looked like his model was predictive, too. Part of Kuhn's impact, I have to admit, was a result of the time which the book was first published. In the middle and late 1960's, questioning authority was the heart of any undergraduate's thinking, and Kuhn's ideas were read by some as a license to question all authority. Perhaps as a consequence, Kuhn's model has been carried by other writers beyond all reason, with everyone from sociologists to New Age fuzzies usurping his terminology, making "paradigm shift" a nearly instant cliche. But his influence has gone far beyond those who want to mis-apply his ideas to everything from post-modern dance to sociobiology. Uniformitarianism has been bloodied, perhaps permanently. By geologists, evolutionists, archaeologists and more; the influence has been pervasive and real. Stephen Jay Gould may or may not subscribe to "Structure," but he has sure demolished uniformitarianism in evolution. I disagree with those who regard "Structure" as "the most important" anything. But it unquestionably has been stunningly influential, and any serious student of science or philosphy, I believe, will be reading this book a hundred years from now. And apart from its influence and impact, the book still reads well almost 40 years on. It's fun and, if you enjoy seeing the world stood on its ear, you'll like Kuhn's approach.
Rating: Summary: Sublime, Purely Sublime Review: You will hate or love this book. No one can be neutral; there is no no man's land. You cannot take prisoners and no hostages can be spared. This is an exceptional book, one of the two or three best books I have ever read. He introduced a vocabulary that is used even outside of science: paradigm shift, incomensurable. Moreover, he dispels notions about scientific objectivity, the nature of a fact, the neutrality of science, etc. Briefly, Kuhn is trying to describe how science advances. It is not incremental and doesn't depend on sudden ground breaking discoveries. Rather, science operates in a paradigm - a framework of assumptions and scientific laws that provide answers to scientific questions and directs scientific research. New discoveries are made to fit within the paradigm, that is the discovery is often explained under the laws of the paradigm; in this sense, seldom if ever does a new discovery lead to a scientific revolution because scientist will try to explain the theory under accepted wisdom. Scientific revolution occurs when the current paradigm is inadequate in explaining a host of observations/data. The controversy is Kuhn doesn't think there is an objective criteria for the displacement. Rather, scientists at some point begin to abandon the old and embrace the new. Therefore, the basis for this shift is not based on good science but more akin to a religious experience. Among his excellent examples is the shift from a ptolemic to a heliocentric universe. Long before the shift, observers knew the ptolomic system was problematic and failed to comport with observations. Astromers continue to try to explain the anomolies within the ptolomic system. When the shift did occur, there was no basis in science for shift. A similar battle is under way in science today between newtonian physics and quantum mechanics. If you just read one book this year, let it be this one.
Rating: Summary: puerile, clumsily written nonsense Review: Re: "Few indeed are the philosophers or historians influential enough to make it into the funny papers, but Kuhn is one." Sorry, He is neither an historian or a philospher, but, yes, this IS a comic book. How much possible abuse can the word "paradigm" take? How many times can it possibly be fitted onto a single page? If these questions intrigue you, you might want to take a look at this. Otherwise, stay away. It has, of course, enjoyed a certain popularity with pseudo-intellectuals. The thing to keep in mind is that pseudo-intellectualism is a form, a particularly virulent form, of ANTI-intellectualism. (Hence Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions".)
Rating: Summary: Buddy, Can You Paradigm? Review: An influential work in the history and philosophy of science, this book serves as a source for the popular use of the term "paradigm." A paradigm consists of the "disciplinary matrix" of science: the framework of assumptions, beliefs, values, and techniques that define a field at a particular time. The term is also used to refer to particular problem situations that exemplify this framework and through which a science is learned by its practitioners. "Normal" science progresses, according to Kuhn, by elaborating a particular paradigm. When "puzzle solving" within a paradigm can no longer account for significant 'facts', a scientific revolution can occur, involving the birth of a new paradigm. Kuhn's views hint at those enunciated earlier by Alfred Korzybski, e.g., "logical fate" and "abstracting." Korzybski saw what Kuhn called "scientific revolutions" as exemplars or paradigms of human progress. Could scientific revolutions become more "normal" if scientists became more aware of their guiding paradigms, more conscious of abstracting?
Rating: Summary: the good book that spawned a lot of mediocre thinking Review: This is another of those books that are more talked about than read. It was conceived as a modest work of sociology on certain types of tranistion in science - those in the physical or 'hard' sciences - and yet Kuhn's conclusions have been taken as a metaphor by everyone from literary theorists to New Age devotees into heavy-duty moral and social relativism. It is a great example how ideas can escape the control of their originators. Kuhn's book is OK, but it is a rather pedestrian read. He wanted to look at how scientists behaved in the face of new ideas and observations that better described the underlying reality - the truth, if you will - of their fields. It was intended to be strictly limited to the more provable sciences, which could be tested against predictions. As far as his intentions went, it is a modest success. If you want to get into the New-Agey philosophical ramifications, you need to go to less rigorous thinkers such as Foucault and his many copiers or Fritof Kapra. You will not find them in Kuhn's book, which I suspect would surprise many people who talk about him. In fact, the scientists I know don't think much of Kuhn's book: they see it as contributing to the post-moedernist argument that science is simply and exclusively a social contruct; they argue that they are going after far deeper truths - true descriptions of reality be they mathematical or the historical categorisations of the darwininists. They despise the talk of paradigm shifting, which they believe is built into the scientific pursuit already. I suppose that they are right, though I also believe there is no question that Kuhn succeeded in capturing how they think and act in many circumstances, that is, the old school often needs to die off so that new ideas can gain the status of orthodoxy that in turn will fall one day. I would not recommend this book to the casual reader. It is better for academics - the 'knowledge professionals' - or for serious intellectuals who will not be disappointed in (and indeed accept) its strict limits in scope.
Rating: Summary: Frustrating to Skim, Insightful with Careful Reading Review: I've been known to skim a book or two in my life. Often, in fact. Sometimes, a quick skim is enough to grasp the main concepts of a book. But not with Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Before I begin my assessment, I want to point out a challenge I faced when I first started writing this review. Often, we mirror the style of books, or any message for that matter, directly after experiencing it. For example, if you've ever spent a substantial amount of time reading Dr. Seuss to your child, you've probably had to fight the urge to rhyme during the following hours. ("I do not want the mail today, I do not want the bills to pay..." etc.) Excuse the leap in this analogy, but I had to fight the urge to adopt Kuhn's style--it's heavy and careful, with complex sentence structure and the syntax of science. With the risk of sounding too informal, I scrapped my first draft of this review and will attempt a more natural, conversational approach. There are three main aspects of this book that I admire. First, Kuhn did not shy away from offering numerous examples to allow us to conceptualize his theory of scientific advancement. Numerous historical, scientific examples are offered throughout. Secondly, Kuhn articulated his theory carefully, building on the simpler concepts before advancing to more complex connections. Finally, Kuhn utilized sound rhetorical strategies, including the use of repetition, summaries, organizational cues, and previews. One notes I haven't commented much about Kuhn's theory. In short, I buy it. But I'm not as convinced as others that the theory can be applied to every field of academia, study, or discipline. And while others try to make this connection, I don't think Kuhn advocates it. To a degree, we can extraplicate understandings of human behavior (that when we ingrain ourselves into a particular way of thinking, it's difficult to see outside the box) But I think the true strength of Kuhn's theory exists in the context of pure science. That's not to say that analogous relationships aren't valid; however, when applying Kuhn's theory outside of the realm of pure science, the application is significantly weakened. If one retains the boundaries Kuhn creates in articulating his theory, one can gain an insightful understanding of the advancements and obstacles of pure science.
|