The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Rating:
Summary: My Two Cents...
Review: I am definitely not a scientific historian, but even I was able to appreciate this book. Although it has since been shown to be incorrect to some degree, it definitely makes sense. The book does get a little too esoteric at times for laymen (or laychildren) like myself, but I can see how people can consider it a classic. Overall, this book is very lucid, logical, and sensible.

Rating:
Summary: While interesting, the idea is illogical itself
Review: This book qualifies as a psychohistorical explanation of the nature of scientific progress, because scientists must have already made a cognitive shift to a new mindset before acceptance of the new theory can occur.

Other people have commented on similar ideas in the works of Feyerabend, Popper, and Polanyi, so I won't repeat any of that here. What I will say, however, is that this theory, while interesting, makes as little, or as much sense, itself, as the irrational science it purports to explain.

So I will make just three points here.

First, Kuhn's explanation of the process seems plausible psychologically but in fact is not supported by the psychological literature itself. People change deeply held convictions and ideas not because of an external paradigm shift, but because they become convinced internally that the new idea is superior to the old. Why? Because it explains the facts better, makes more powerful predictions, or is simpler. In other words, it is a fairly logical, reasonable process. This should surprise no-one but Kuhn.

Second, Kuhn's theory ignores the innumerable scientific hypotheses, theories, and advances that displaced earlier explanations with very little or no resistance.

Third, the author misinterprets the initial resistance to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The real problem with the acceptance of this theory is that when it made its debut (especially in the case of Einstein's General Theory), few physicists themselves could even understand the mathematics and physics involved. Ignorance should not be confused with scientific irrationalism or just stubborn refusal to accept the truth.

Rating:
Summary: "I am NOT a Kuhnian!" - Thomas Kuhn
Review: This is truly one of the landmark works of 20th century philosophy of science. It is written by Thomas Kuhn, who was for decades a philosopher of science at MIT. His extensive background in physics gives him a unique perspective from which to author a book such as this.

The core thesis is that science can only make minimal progress without the existence of paradigms. Without a working model, science descends into mere arbitrary, usually aimless cataloging of data without any means to unify the data into a cohesive whole.

Over time, of course, there are paradigm shifts in which one model replaces another. It is this phenomenom that Kuhn traces; scientific revolutions. There is always much resistance to new theories / paradigms - especially by the older scientists in a field which may be impacted by the subject paradigm. Kuhn points out that very often it is the younger scientists who usually make the greatest contributions, for they are not "set in their ways." Human psychology enters into the equation more and more the older the scientist happens to be; his scientific upbringing may cause him to ignore or reject anything which challenges his neat & tidy view of the universe.

Contrary to popular belief, it is not the purpose of a paradigm to eradicate every single anomaly or instance of data which does not favor it. These idiosyncrasies of nature are to be worked out (or attempted to be worked out) by what Kuhn labels "normal science," which are the periods in between scientific revolutions.

What makes one working model more attractive than another is the way its answers to the "big general questions" of the particular field are superior to its rivals. Of course, how much slack a given paradigm should be given before it is discarded (due to contrary empirical facts) is not queried in detail by Kuhn. I suppose that the determination is always that such-and-such a model provides "the best answer available" to our considerations of nature.

Perhaps the most famous line appears on page 90: "Almost always the men who achieve these fundamental inventions of a new paradigm have been either very young or very new to the field whose paradigm they change." Kuhn's point, I believe, is correct. However, this line has been abused more than any other passage in the book. Minority groups with axes to grind have "translated" this statement as thus:

"BECAUSE our paradigm is not accepted by the scientific community, and BECAUSE we were not brought up in the same educational environment as they, THEREFORE our paradigm is only valid one - de capo. ANY resistance to our way of thinking about things only goes to show how legitimate paradigms are ignored and rejected by the established powers that be in the scientific community - just as Thomas Kuhn wrote."

It is non-sequiters such as these that led Kuhn to vehemently declare to the famous Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson that "I am NOT a Kuhnian!"

This book is highly recommended to philosophers, scientists and philosophers of science, as well persons who are curious about the idealogical engines which drive science. A fascinating inquiry into the nexus between human psychology and scientific thought.

Rating:
Summary: A true classic
Review: This is the book in which Thomas Kuhn introduced his famous paradigm theory: scientists of the same discipline have a set of theories and practices in common, the so-called paradigm. In the normal course of scientific research, they do not question this paradigm, but apply it to solve new problems. This changes when the paradigm is found to fail consistently when it is applied to explain certain observations. This can lead to the appearance of a new paradigm, which eventually replaces the old one.

The book is very well-documented. Kuhn amply uses examples from the history of science to illustrate his point, and you will not find a single statement that is not accompanied by the necessary arguments.

Books like this are not easy to read, but this book is worth the effort. First of all, because Kuhn has an eloquent style. Second, because you do not need any prior knowledge in order to understand the text (although it might help). Third, and most importantly, because it gives a good picture of how science develops, how scientists behave.

Of course no single picture of science can ever be perfect. Every philosophy of science highlights certain aspects of the scientific process, and leaves other aspects almost untouched. This book is no exception. However, if you read just one original work in this field, this is probably the best choice.

Rating:
Summary: Already shown to be wrong -- historical value only.
Review: Someone interested enough to look up this book could more profitably spend their time with a copy of Stove's "Anything Goes: Origins of the Cult of Scientific Irrationalism"

In it, the author shows how the philosophies of Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend (all derivative of Karl Popper) are all dependent on a single unexpressed assumption implicit in the reasoning of Hume.

The hidden assumption takes the form of a logical error in that it assumes an exegetical negative which has not and cannot be proven.

Thus, Hume's inductive skepticism, mainstream 20th century science philosophy, and ideas derived, from it are based on a logical error of Hume.

Stove traces the acceptance of this error to Popper's need to construct a defense against the future recurrence of the "catastrophic" fall of Newtonianian physics. He analyzes how Kuhn and others structure their language and arguments so as to make their irrationalism seem plausible, even delving into the force behind the peculiar errors of deduction that pepper their arguments.

"Structure of Scientific Revolutions" will continue to be referenced indefinately, partly because it has been taught to uncritical students who echo it, but mostly because it serves the political interests of postmodernists and feminists. In actuality, it belongs in the remainder-bin of historical curiosities ... basically, junk from which only an enormous amount of mischief can flow.

Rating:
Summary: Pragmatism without the name
Review: If you could somehow communicate to a newborn, and tell him or her something as simple as "The sun will rise at 6 am," the child would be in a daze. "Sun?" "6?" Kuhn in his book is specific to science, but the implication is that everything we take for granted in society has been constructed. Everything we consider to be "natural" standards: time, distance, taste, language are all socially constructed, and therefore are subject to criticism. However, Kuhn, like Pragmatists, sees science as both potentially beneficial and potentially harmful. The benefits from science are clear: things like medecine, however the harms, such as scientific justification for nazism and racism, are very clear as well. In short, Kuhn tells us to be cautious, and not accept science as fact as society tends to do, as science, like everything else, is socially constructed.

Rating:
Summary: Enduring Classic on the Hard Truth about Changing Minds
Review: Two points are worthy of emphasis: 1) the paradigm shift is always forced and 2) until the paradigm shift occurs, always suddenly, the incumbents can comfortably explain everything with their existing paradigm. There will be many from the current "laissez faire" academics without accountability environment who would be critical of this book, but the fact is that it's fundamentals are on target; as the sociology of knowledge has shown time and time again, "thinkers" are nepotistic, incestuous, and generally lazy, as well as mono-lingual and culturally-constrained, and it takes a major shock-wave to push any given intellectual domain up to the next plateau.

Rating:
Summary: Incomplete and misleading
Review: Kuhn's book is eminently popular and with good reason - it surveys a large number of important historical developments in science.

Unfortunately, his main thesis for which the book is famous, namely that science occurs in incommeasurable revolutions, is very dubiously supported. A more careful investigation of cases (see, for instance, P. Kitcher's book _The Advancement of Science_ and _The Norton History of Chemistry_) suggests Kuhn is wrong. A logical analysis suggests the strongest reading of his thesis is logically false (see Bunge's _Philosophy of Science_). Read these and decide for yourself case by case; it may be that some scientific developments are "more Kuhnian" than others.

Rating:
Summary: Science is not interested in new theories
Review: Did you know that scientiests are not really interested in finding new "things"? Did you know that the purpose of research is to cement an existing theory (or paradigm)or that science will hold on to an existing theory until it is so peppered with holes and exceptions that a new theory can emerge and be accepted? ( a paradigm shift)

With many examples Kuhn proves these points. Some are easier to follow than others (me not being a scientist). But he clearly shows the struggle that goes on before a widely accepted theory, eg. that the earth is the center of the universe, can be replaced by one the claims this not to be the case. It shows how scientists that proclaim a new theory are osctracized or what happens to those who can not accept that the paradigm has shifted. The book is an eye opener for all of us not involved in the field. Certainly one of the more interesting books I've read.

Rating:
Summary: A Must-Read Book
Review: "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is one of the most influential, and certainly one of the most cited, books of the 20th century. Kuhn persuasively undercuts the notion of the progressive growth of scientific knowledge, arguing that what is thought of as "science" at one period of history will be seen as "non-science" in a later period. Kuhn also argues that seemingly irrational causes provoke the transition ("paradigm shift") from one scientific era to the next. Certainly provocative, this book is also highly readable and convincingly argued.