The Structure of Scientific Revolutions at Fifty

[tbieter]

"Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn, then a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, released a thin volume entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn challenged the traditional view of science as an accumulation of objective facts toward an ever more truthful understanding of nature. Instead, he argued, what scientists discover depends to a large extent on the sorts of questions they ask, which in turn depend in part on scientists’ philosophical commitments. Sometimes, the dominant scientific way of looking at the world becomes obviously riddled with problems; this can provoke radical and irreversible scientific revolutions that Kuhn dubbed “paradigm shifts” — introducing a term that has been much used and abused. Paradigm shifts interrupt the linear progression of knowledge by changing how scientists view the world, the questions they ask of it, and the tools they use to understand it. Since scientists’ worldview after a paradigm shift is so radically different from the one that came before, the two cannot be compared according to a mutual conception of reality. Kuhn concluded that the path of science through these revolutions is not necessarily toward truth but merely away from previous error."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... s-at-fifty

[jinx]

I read that book. Different from the usual 'science'.

[chaz wyman]

"Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn, then a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, released a thin volume entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn challenged the traditional view of science as an accumulation of objective facts toward an ever more truthful understanding of nature. Instead, he argued, what scientists discover depends to a large extent on the sorts of questions they ask, which in turn depend in part on scientists’ philosophical commitments. Sometimes, the dominant scientific way of looking at the world becomes obviously riddled with problems; this can provoke radical and irreversible scientific revolutions that Kuhn dubbed “paradigm shifts” — introducing a term that has been much used and abused. Paradigm shifts interrupt the linear progression of knowledge by changing how scientists view the world, the questions they ask of it, and the tools they use to understand it. Since scientists’ worldview after a paradigm shift is so radically different from the one that came before, the two cannot be compared according to a mutual conception of reality. Kuhn concluded that the path of science through these revolutions is not necessarily toward truth but merely away from previous error."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... s-at-fifty

Completely essential reading for every scientist or prospective scientist.
Sadly the book is more widely read by social scientists and humanities boffs.
It is a unfortunate fact that a training in science rarely includes a historical and philosophical grounding.

[tbieter]

"Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn, then a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, released a thin volume entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn challenged the traditional view of science as an accumulation of objective facts toward an ever more truthful understanding of nature. Instead, he argued, what scientists discover depends to a large extent on the sorts of questions they ask, which in turn depend in part on scientists’ philosophical commitments. Sometimes, the dominant scientific way of looking at the world becomes obviously riddled with problems; this can provoke radical and irreversible scientific revolutions that Kuhn dubbed “paradigm shifts” — introducing a term that has been much used and abused. Paradigm shifts interrupt the linear progression of knowledge by changing how scientists view the world, the questions they ask of it, and the tools they use to understand it. Since scientists’ worldview after a paradigm shift is so radically different from the one that came before, the two cannot be compared according to a mutual conception of reality. Kuhn concluded that the path of science through these revolutions is not necessarily toward truth but merely away from previous error."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... s-at-fifty

Completely essential reading for every scientist or prospective scientist.
Sadly the book is more widely read by social scientists and humanities boffs.
It is a unfortunate fact that a training in science rarely includes a historical and philosophical grounding.

Expanding on Chaz's thought, I would assert that a citizen is not an educated person if he or she has not read this book.

[chaz wyman]

"Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn, then a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, released a thin volume entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn challenged the traditional view of science as an accumulation of objective facts toward an ever more truthful understanding of nature. Instead, he argued, what scientists discover depends to a large extent on the sorts of questions they ask, which in turn depend in part on scientists’ philosophical commitments. Sometimes, the dominant scientific way of looking at the world becomes obviously riddled with problems; this can provoke radical and irreversible scientific revolutions that Kuhn dubbed “paradigm shifts” — introducing a term that has been much used and abused. Paradigm shifts interrupt the linear progression of knowledge by changing how scientists view the world, the questions they ask of it, and the tools they use to understand it. Since scientists’ worldview after a paradigm shift is so radically different from the one that came before, the two cannot be compared according to a mutual conception of reality. Kuhn concluded that the path of science through these revolutions is not necessarily toward truth but merely away from previous error."
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publicati ... s-at-fifty

Completely essential reading for every scientist or prospective scientist.
Sadly the book is more widely read by social scientists and humanities boffs.
It is a unfortunate fact that a training in science rarely includes a historical and philosophical grounding.

Expanding on Chaz's thought, I would assert that a citizen is not an educated person if he or she has not read this book.

Sorry this does not expand on my thought. I cannot agree with this at all.
I think you can still qualify as educated and not have read it.

[chasw]

Thanks, t. Its interesting you should mention Kuhn's book. In my last semester at Cal State Long Beach, Fall 1969, I took a 400-level class in Philosophy of Science and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was the prime textbook. One of my takeaways from Kuhn's discussion was the insight that most revolutionary breakthroughs in science have been made by young individuals who are not yet married to a conventional paradigm. I found that to be ironic since major works in philosophy are typically produced by old people. - CW

[Hjarloprillar]

"Fifty years ago, Thomas Kuhn, then a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, released a thin volume entitled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn challenged the traditional view of science as an accumulation of objective facts toward an ever more truthful understanding of nature. Instead, he argued, what scientists discover depends to a large extent on the sorts of questions they ask, which in turn depend in part on scientists’ philosophical commitments. Sometimes, the dominant scientific way of looking at the world becomes obviously riddled with problems; this can provoke radical and irreversible scientific revolutions that Kuhn dubbed “paradigm shifts” — introducing a term that has been much used and abused. Paradigm shifts interrupt the linear progression of knowledge by changing how scientists view the world, the questions they ask of it, and the tools they use to understand it. Since scientists’ worldview after a paradigm shift is so radically different from the one that came before, the two cannot be compared according to a mutual conception of reality. Kuhn concluded that the path of science through these revolutions is not necessarily toward truth but merely away from previous error."

excellent.
Unfortunately.
Science is a hodge podge.
Millions of minds scanning anything they desire.

So when say the military comes along and says.. we want this.
We jump.

morality and ethics be damned.

When Oppenheimer said " i am become death , destroyer of worlds"
Who remembers that Bainbridge leaned in and whispered..
"Now.. we are all sons of bitches."