Rating: 
Summary: hmmm. not bad for one man
Review: I think Kuhn has definitely stumbled on something important here, but his book is badly worded and difficult to process mentally. perhaps a book written on kuhn would be better.don't underestimate the power of the mind. i don't expect this to come up as a review. END
Rating: 
Summary: Enlightning!
Review: Kuhn does a fantastic job outlining the chaotic backward and forward leaps involved in the advancement of the religion we call Science. Truely enlightning!
Rating:
Summary: Read it, or suffer the consequences.
Review: Kuhn's work may be thick reading for a mind thin on science, like mine, but until you've read it, you're in the dark. Science is not what you thought it was; Kuhn tells it as it is. Read it and reap
Rating:
Summary: If you've used the word paradigm, you must read this book.
Review: I read this book almost 30 years ago and still consider it one of the most profound texts I have read. It gives genuine insight into fundamental beliefs. I still cringe when I hear TQM speakers talk about paradigm shifts. People don't change paradigms like a pair of glasses, they change them about as easily as they might change into a new set of eyes. Persons of accomplishment have gotten where they are by mastering skills that fit into their understanding of the world around themselves. Is it so difficult to understand that they would be hesitant to start looking at the world in a new way and deny the world that gives value to their achievements. This is not a book about psychology. It is a book about the unavoidable consequences a being logical creatures. You really do need to read this book
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: Philosophic common sense applied to Science Evolution of Tho
Review: The complete title of this review is "Philosophic common sense applied to Science Evolution of Thought". Basically the central thesis of Kuhn was that science evolves through paradigm shifts, and of course he conceives science as a compound of theories and laws based on the most agreeable paradigms of the epoch. I found this book refreshing and interesting from at least two perspectives, filosofically and historically. Also this book is read as a compendium of consecutive works that altogether make a coherent thesis, so it's easy reading it. Finally, Kuhn's style is very friendly and personal, so you really feel he is urging you to follow him in all his arguments. Reading this book was a great experience for me, and I highly recommend it.
Rating: 
Summary: Kuhn made a career out of having it both ways
Review: You can read this book (and I read it many times) in two different ways. It either describes interesting (but minor) aspects of scientific discovery or it really revolutionizes our understanding of science.
In the second interpretation, science makes no progress at all: the scientific revolutions have as much substance as the hemline shifts of the Milan fashion industry. This is the paradigm-shift idea.
In the first interpretation, the book simply explains that scientists are human and that the progress of science is sometimes retarded or accelerated by psychological factors, fashions, etc.
Well, if you interpret the book in the first way, this is a really boring book, and the author's fame is totally unjustified. The author became famous because the book was interpreted in the second way: to mean that scientific progress is an illusion and scientific revolutions are just matters of changing fashions (I hate the term paradigm!)
Obviously the radical, fashion-shift idea is nonsense: science involves cumulative growth of knowledge. What is once known true, remains true. For instance, Relativity, at low velocities is equivalent to Newtonian Mechanics and Quantum Mechanics reduces to Classical Physics for macroscopic objects. Even Ptolemaic astronomy has still some validity (spherical astronomy)!
So the radical point of view is clearly wrong and irrational. Kuhn made a career out of having it both ways. His reputation was based on the irrational, paradigm-shift interpretation, but, when pressed, he would retreat to the boring interpretation: A career built on ambiguity and catchy phrases!
Rating: 
Summary: True or Not, It's Worthwhile
Review: This proved to be much more fascinating than I'd feared. It's also been a sharply controversial book that has become known as one of the most influential books of all time regardless. Nominally, it is a theory on how scientific revolutions come to pass: the events that trigger them, the forms they take, and the path to their general acceptance. If you've ever heard of a scientific paradigm, this is where the notion comes from. This work, especially its notion of multiple perceptions of the same world, has also been applied to other disciplines outside of science. Highly recommended.
Rating:
Summary: He shifted the paradigm of the history of science
Review: I am not a scientist. I do not really understand how scientists work. I read this book, and its major idea seemed to me important i.e. that at a certain time, the traditional way of understanding the world, and the traditional methods for working in it in some particular area of science, yield only contradictions and confusions. The ' model' or ' paradigm' the system of beliefs and practices which those working in the area share proves inadequate. And it is impossible to move ahead, or even simply get out of being stuck through use of the traditional paradigm. So in its place comes the ' revolutionary new paradigm ' which transforms the way the problems are seen, introduces new problems, new methods, and gets scientists working again. Science moves from ' paradigm' to ' paradigm' and one question is of course whether this is in direction of greater approximation to truth, or in no direction at all. I and I think most scientists would like to believe the former is the case, and the new models are closer approximations to the ' truth'which perhaps may never be reached.
I believe the idea is a very interesting one, and certainly has proven to be a productive and controversial one. I was also surprised by Kuhn's reporting that the great majority of scientists do 'normal science' which is to say work within the established paradigm in which they check results, go over old tests etc.
One additional and great question is whether or not the idea of paradigm shift can be used in relation to other areas of human study , especially those related to ' periodization' in humanities and social sciences. I would I believe take the common sense position that the ' progress from paradigm to paradigm ' toward greater approximation of truth is probably more relevant in the scientific realms than in the humanities.
I will leave the real scientific debates to those qualified to have them.
For the general reader this is a highly interesting and thought- provoking work.
Rating: 
Summary: Kuhn's ideas apply to philosophy of science
Review: Let me give Kuhn two stars. One of them is for Kuhn's ability to invent catchy phrases - such as the "paradigm shift" - that have made him famous not only among the philosophers.
The other one is for his fair attempt to study psychological effects associated with dramatic discoveries in science. I don't think that Kuhn explicitly states in his book that there is no objective truth that constrains which theories are better than others; but he obviously uses such formulations that naturally lead many readers of his book to similar absurd statements.
Otherwise I find this book hard to read. But more importantly, it is superficial. Kuhn obviously believes that he is able to reveal some mysterious psychological facts about the behavior of the scientists. Moreover, he seems to think that the scientific progress could be slowed down or sped up if the behavior of the scientists were modified appropriately.
In philosophy of science, it may be true. The progress in philosophy is fictitious; the philosophers are inventing new words, and they are continuously returning to the old ideas, in order to revive even older ideas a year later. If we tell them to change their opinions more often, the progress in philosophy will be faster. Kuhn's book itself is an example of the "paradigm shift" in philosophy of science - which really means that he did not discover anything new, but he was able to emphasize one obviously well-known specific aspect of the history of science (the difference between the "revolutions" and "normal science") and this aspect became fashionable for a while. Another philosopher may promote another aspect that becomes fashionable, and we will return to a pre-Kuhn era again. There is no real progress here: only the opinions are being changed back and forth.
However, this is not how science works. Science is making a real progress and the steps cannot really be "undone". Despite the centuries that we have spent with science, we still have no universal rules how to behave in order to speed up the scientific progress. Science is not that easy. You may propose that the scientists should be proposing bolder and more speculative ideas; you may recommend them to follow other scientists more or less faithfully; you may tell them to rely on the "current" textbook wisdoms more dogmatically, or less dogmatically.
Be sure that none of these rules is good enough to speed up the scientific progress. In order for a person to make a revolution in theoretical physics, she must - first of all - know the important true facts about the physical phenomena that she intends to describe in a new way. This includes the knowledge of the trustworthy aspects of the "old" theories, as well as some underestimated, but important features of the existing knowledge (and perhaps some experiments that look like details, but are really the key). Finally, she must believe the right principles.
Of course, the difficult task is to identify the "important pieces" and the "right principles" and figure out how to use them to make the "paradigm shift" - or at least how to convert them into an interesting piece of scientific work. (I could use the words "paradigm shift" because I gave him one star for this phrase.) A scientist must be smart as well as lucky to make the right choice. But what is the right choice depends on the particular situation and Kuhn's general rules cannot help her.
One can ask whether the question about the importance of this piece is an objective question. Of course, it is hard to reach agreement about the answer if we talk about a very open and controversial question that is currently under investigation. Moreover, the discoveries are often made in an "illogical order".
Nevertheless I find it pretty clear that in the long run, the results of the scientific developments become virtually independent of these short-term coincidences. This fact also makes it possible to analyze the importance of scientific contributions that were made a long time ago. Incidentally, it seems to me that Kuhn would disagree even with this statement - but this statement is necessary for us to draw any conclusions from the history of science.
Even though we have learned many lessons from the history of science (well, many very different lessons) - and we have read books like this one - and we also know many things about the nature of various ideas and about psychology of other scientists, we still do not know what is the right way to solve the cosmological constant problem, for example. Most of philosophy of science is just a superficial description of some common features of the historical events. Unfortunately it is not enough to say something about the real scientific questions, and this fact makes books like Kuhn's work pretty much useless for scientists and for others who want to make genuine progress.
|
