The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn, originally published in 1962, is more relevant today than ever before. Anyone with an open mind, craving the most plausible answers to many scientific puzzles, will greatly enhance their understanding of how science actually works if they read this ground-breaking work.

I first read the book in 1972 as part of a Philosophy course that explored human thought over the centuries relative to concepts such as "Space, Time, Cause and Motion."

Kuhn, more than any other author in that series, truly opened my mind to understand the historical process whereby "science" takes place.

His most compelling analysis reveals plainly that scientific thought evolves not as an accumulation of mere facts over time, but rather is a function of how well proposed theories in a given time explain observable phenomena.

As long as a the established scientific model, or "paradigm" better explains or "solves the puzzle" in connection with given a given phenomenon, the practitioners of "normal science" zealously continue to pursue increasingly more explanations for what may be going on in nature or the universe under the banner of that particular "school of thought."

However, inevitably, anomalies that do not fit or support the current paradigm begin to creep in...eventually adding up to such a degree that the veracity of the theory begins to be called into question by a few bold "out of the box" thinkers.

Nevertheless, the community of steadfast adherents to the existing paradigm will tend to vehemently oppose, mock or question the credentials of anyone proposing an alternative theory or explanation.

Here is where the scientific "revolution" begins to emerge. Practitioners of what Kuhn calls "revolutionary science" conclude the increasing failures of the established theory require a re-examination of various assumptions...ultimately leading to a rival theory which, when reaching the point where it better explains observable phenomena, than the established view, triggers a "paradigm shift."

The new theory increasingly gains supporters, until it eventually dislodges the previously accepted model.

So why is Kuhn's book a must read? In today's world of science there is neither a shortage of controversies nor of anatomies in term of many established theories within the scientific community.

1. A variable speed of light cosmology has been proposed independently by John Moffat and the two-man team of Andreas Albrecht and João Magueijo to explain the horizon anomaly of cosmology.

The idea is that light once traveled many times faster in the distant past, and thus distant regions of the expanding universe have had time to interact since the beginning of the universe, thereby proposing as an alternative to cosmic inflation.

2. Several anomalies continue to rear their heads in connection with The Theory of Evolution (absence of transitional life forms and many others) and, true to form, the established scientific community tends to defend and protect its position, typically scoffing at those who question their key assumptions.

Kuhn's masterful work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, enables bold thinkers, who choose not to handicapped by the protectionism and often closed-minded tenants of today's "scientific establishment," to better recognize the transition we are in today...and to support the search for alternative models that indeed will usher in another round of paradigm shifts...and a new scientific revolution.

John A. Fallone

This book is widely used for doctoral programs in social sciences. Overall, it's a well-written book, but the author uses the term "paradigm" for several different concepts. If you can find a good summary of this book, just go for that one.

I enjoy the reading. I have used Kuhn as a reference throughout grad school to justify my thoughts on leadership paradigm shifts. Kuhn's contribution had four positive elements: a) Mechanism of crisis: precipitation and resolution, b) Analogy of the historicity of science with evolution c) that science rewrites its own history, and d) psychology of paradigm shifts; that the paradigm is not completely defined by explicit prescription but also by a system of practices that are not fully articulated. In summary, Change is difficult. Human Beings resist change. However, the process has been set in motion long ago and we will continue to co-create our own experience. Kuhn (1996) states, "awareness is prerequisite to all acceptable changes of theory" (p. 67). It all begins in the mind of the person. What we perceive, whether normal or metanormal, conscious or unconscious, are subject to the limitations and distortions produced by our inherited and socially conditional nature.

Essential reading in understanding why the Enlightenment ideal of rationality is dead or at least doesn't count in ways that matter. In particular, Kuhn calls into question the idea of science as a rational enterprise, and since science is epistemologically privileged and thought to be the essence of rationality, to call into question the rationality of science is to call into question rationality itself. This is different, I submit, than the anti-rationality of the deconstructionists (e.g., Derrida), which seems to lack immediate real world consequences (aside form contributing to a sense of alienation in some). I find Hegel to be a precursor of Kuhn. Hegel attempted to describe how we come to believe what we believe, and Kuhn attempts to do this in the field of science, and, it should be added, with much more accessibly.

There are some who will find Kuhn lacking all coherence (sophisticated BS, as one person put it), and that is another way of saying "irrational". For those who associate irrationality with things like religious fundamentalism, irrationalism is a fearful thing. Yet, it is rationality itself that has been called into question by the events of the 20th century, beginning with the carnage of WWI. The answer is not more rationalism. Rationalism, the primacy of reason and the center of modernism, is itself a belief, and the crisis of modernity is the recognition that reason has no more claim to a privileged position than religion. The answer may be, as Rorty has pointed out, deciding what we want to believe without being forced to justify the basis of those beliefs: we believe because our beliefs support what we hold to be good things(neo-pragmatism) That may be a fearful thing for those who don't find complete correspondence between their beliefs and Rorty's privileged beliefs. What, though, it does show, is that irrationality is not sufficient grounds for being dismissive. In doing so one may be taking a stance on the wrong side of the arrow of history.

The arrow, though, is not that of the Whig theory of history, where things constantly improve driven by reason. Historians of this view (as well as much of popular culture) denigrate older views by degrading them to myth or religious belief status. This gives a privileged position to our own, contemporary beliefs and gives us a sense of comfort. Kuhn disturbs this comfortable view by showing, for example, that Ptolemaic astronomy gave plausible answers to questions of the day. So too, one could argue that the contemporary dismissive view of Scholastic philosophy is more the result of Enlightenment propaganda than of merit. At the least, Kuhn is a good (partial) antidote for contemporary smugness --- a challenge to bourgeois sentiment. Kuhn, though, is much more than a cultural caution; he is an important voice in the contemporary philosophical debate.

Who would like "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"? Those who like ideas with profound consequences easily presented. Kuhn is a Nietzsche, and like Nietzsche is at the very least a fun read. He is much more if taken seriously.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is an important book, because it helped people view scientific progress in a new light, and introduced us to the important concept of paradigm shift. Unfortunately, however, the book is poorly written, with a dense and overly academic style, and quite frankly, is very, very, boring. Good concept, poor execution.

I read SSR as part of preparation to begin work on a paper and received a very different dose of smart than I expected.

Kuhn has shown how meaningful, and I daresay fun, the prospect of a career as a researcher in any field could be. In this classic work he also guts a lot of intuitive thoughts on science, discovery, and broader knowledge itself - after a thorough reading you'll really see these processes almost totally redefined.

As a non-science major I found all the scientific antecedents to which he frequently and swiftly referred (i.e., Leyden jar, relativity, photoelectric effect) coupled with the dense, elevated writing quite difficult to get through. Still, with slow and focused reading, and a little bit of note taking, which I would suggest to anyone without a PhD, I feel like the main ideas are quite digestible.

Although this is one of the most important books I've read, it is also one of the least fulfilling. Let me start out by saying that I am a casual reader of the history and philosophy of science. This book, described as being one of the most important in its area, is not for the casual reader. It is a scholarly work and it presumes a great deal of scientific knowledge. When discussing a specific revolution, Thomas Kuhn does not go into the details of the science behind the revolution; he just assumes that the reader knows it. And befitting its stature, the book was written in a very scholarly tone. Unfortunately this meant that I had to do a lot of digging to reach the kernel of the point that Kuhn was trying to make. However, Kuhn's revelations about how scientific revolutions come about and the role of normal science answered a lot of my questions. His discussions of paradigms were also very enlightening and he certainly explained why old ideas are so difficult to overthrow. Indeed, now that I've read this book, I recognize when other authors refer to his thinking. Overall though, I do not recommend this book to other casual readers.

Kuhn's theory has been met with lavish praise, nuanced criticism, vitriol and dismissal. This polemical book challenges assumptions about the way science has worked, and delineates the pattern of scientific progress in terms of changing patterns and modes of thought: normal (puzzle-solving) science, the build up of anomalies, and the introduction of new paradigms. Distilled to its essence, Kuhn argues that scientific study is not immune from the human intricacies that plague other fields of scholarship.

My major critiques are as follows:

1.) Many defenders of science as an endeavor dismiss Kuhn. I think Kuhn gives science too much credit. Kuhn was trained as a scientist, and is obviously aware of the great contributions that science has given to society, but he ignores the fact that science interlopes with other parts of society. It is not totally self-contained but has borrowed ideas from revolutions in other realms, such as the enlightenment.

2.) He sometimes falls into the trap ahistorical timelessness when discussing the notion that knowledge is not accumulated, but rather gestalt shifts govern revolution.

3.) He speaks in such vague language that its difficult to tease apart any real meaning. Such is the nature of any theoretical approach, I suppose. For example, there are branches of scientific study that do just accumulate knowledge, he ignores them and paints with broad strokes. In the first few chapters he explains that he's not talking about applied science, but in doing so avoids having to address technological advances spurring scientific change (see PCR technology, DNA sequencing etc.)

Kuhn's argument has its deficiencies but it provides a lens through which to view scientific advancement. I cringe at attempts to use Kuhn to attack science as a study or ridicule it. Science has no monopoly on truth, but it happens to be an extremely important endeavor. None of this was Kuhn's intent. He was just trying to describe his observations. Apparently he did something right because its still being cited, published, and reviewed into the 21st century.

It seems that most people think the philosophy of science begins and ends with Kuhn. Most of these people have never read the book, even fewer have read it critically, and fewer still are familiar with any significant amount of science or its philosophy beyond The Book.

It was greedily latched onto by many mainly because it is wrongly perceived as having somehow placed science on the same (presumptive) level of subjectivity as non-scientific intellectual endeavors like literary criticism.

Thus, while there is merit in the book the uses to which it has been put are execrable. In practice it has done nothing more for society than make people feel good about the fact that they don't understand science and mathematics even to the point of avoiding truly dangerous ignorance.

As with philosophy of science in general (which I love and respect), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was and is largely ignored by those actually _doing_ science. Without Kuhn's assurance that they're making progress, scientists somehow manage to continue bringing us things like the human genome, cures and treatments for diseases you've never heard of, broadband internet, laser surgery, memory-foam matresses, HDTV, etc.

Science works. It is up to philosophers to explain why and lend helpful analysis and clarity. If philosophers can't explain why Science works, then it is Philosophy that has failed, not Science.

It would be redundant for me to recap the specific criticisms of Kuhn ably covered by other reviewers such as "Delendus est Griffinus", not to mention most of the top philosophers and scientists in the last 35 years.

To sum up: The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions does not claim what most people think it claims. The boldest of the book's claims are dubious, fallacious and/or based on factually incorrect or selective analyses of history. The remainder is an interesting and perhaps useful corrective to overly simplistic analyses of the process and history of science. The book does _not_ constitute a "paradigm shift" in thinking about or practicing science.

Personally, I think it will be largely an historical footnote in another decade or two. To some extent it already is, except to those operating _outside_ the mainstream of both science and the philosophy of science.

You don't need to read this book, but please, don't trust me!

Instead, read an anthology like Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. You'll find all the Kuhn you need there, along with a more realistic idea of the spectrum of thinking in the philosophy of science. In that book Kuhn makes up ~60 of 1379 pages, which is on the order that the importance and "revolutionary" impact of his ideas deserve.

It seems that most people think the philosophy of science begins and ends with Kuhn. Most of these people have never read the book, even fewer have read it critically, and fewer still are familiar with any significant amount of science or its philosophy beyond The Book.

It was greedily latched onto by many mainly because it is wrongly perceived as having somehow placed science on the same (presumptive) level of subjectivity as non-scientific intellectual endeavors like literary criticism.

Thus, while there is merit in the book the uses to which it has been put are execrable. In practice it has done nothing more for society than make people feel good about the fact that they don't understand science and mathematics even to the point of avoiding truly dangerous ignorance.

As with philosophy of science in general (which I love and respect), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was and is largely ignored by those actually _doing_ science. Without Kuhn's assurance that they're making progress, scientists somehow manage to continue bringing us things like the human genome, cures and treatments for diseases you've never heard of, broadband internet, laser surgery, memory-foam matresses, HDTV, etc.

Science works. It is up to philosophers to explain why and lend helpful analysis and clarity. If philosophers can't explain why Science works, then it is Philosophy that has failed, not Science.

It would be redundant for me to recap the specific criticisms of Kuhn ably covered by other reviewers such as "Delendus est Griffinus", not to mention most of the top philosophers and scientists in the last 35 years.

To sum up: The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions does not claim what most people think it claims. The boldest of the book's claims are dubious, fallacious and/or based on factually incorrect or selective analyses of history. The remainder is an interesting and perhaps useful corrective to overly simplistic analyses of the process and history of science. The book does _not_ constitute a "paradigm shift" in thinking about or practicing science.

Personally, I think it will be largely an historical footnote in another decade or two. To some extent it already is, except to those operating _outside_ the mainstream of both science and the philosophy of science.

You don't need to read this book, but please, don't trust me!

Instead, read an anthology like Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues. You'll find all the Kuhn you need there, along with a more realistic idea of the spectrum of thinking in the philosophy of science. In that book Kuhn makes up ~60 of 1379 pages, which is on the order that the importance and "revolutionary" impact of his ideas deserve.

It is an interesting book that stretches the thought about how science evolves and the nature of that evolution/revolution. Thought provoking. Stimulating. A good thought framing piece to set a context around scientific exploration.

The best book if one wants to learn about the history of science and theory. A difficult read but worth every sentence. Profound and foundational. Must read for all doctoral students!!

Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a must read for anyone studying the events at which a scientific theory no longer answers all the new observations -- Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's of gravity are often cited as classical examples -- and a new set of paradigms is developed. Unfortunately I lost the copy I had when taking a course in History of Science, am glad that it's still in print and to have it back in my library.

This book is a must read for every college freshman. It should be required for entrance to any technical or scientific discipline.

Thomas Kuhn's seminal book on the evolution of knowledge and how new ideas are conceived, developed, and finally accepted. I had seen it referenced in many books and finally decided to read ir for myself.

It is not an easy read but put in the effort and you will reap a great reward.

It is easy to assume that everyone is familiar with Kuhn's work, but in the famously taped words of the late Richard Nixon, "That would be wrong!." THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS is a nodal point in modern understanding of how we know what we know and how science moves forward. This slim publication may be the most frequently referrenced book in my reading experience, outside of (perhaps) the Bible (which has been around somewhat longer and which makes far less sense). The gist of Kuhn's thesis is that Science pretends to progress through incremental additions to knowledge, carefully documented by hard working researchers, but it ain't so. He carefully demonstrates that science actually lurches forward when an individual stumbles on a paradigm-shifting revelation -- which most of the establishment denies vehemently until it is dragged kicking and shrieking into the new mode of thought. Though I don't own a copy, and haven't read it since a friend handed it to me in 1971 it remains vivid. I still inwardly thank Woody for that gift whenever I see Kuhn mentioned. Maybe everyone HAS read it. If so, never mind.

This book is a challenge to read for a casual scientist, but does follow a pattern. In particular, there seems to be "a point" on each page, with the reminder of the narrative being a digression providing anecdotal evidence of scientific breakthrough that illustrates his "point." There are several strong outlines available on the internet that can facilitate the deciphering of the pattern. I think you would have to be a pretty hardcore science junkie on par of a jeopardy champion to get the full enjoyment of reading each digression. However, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is truly a benchmark of how we view science (agree or disagree) and is required reading for any serious scholar.

The Kuhnian notion of "normal science" consists of the creation of a dominant paradigm which subsequently governs all inquiry. Hegemony is created where ongoing research either fits within the "knowledge base" or the researcher may be ostracized. In this manner, scientific revolutions occur in a linear fashion, where one paradigm is "discovered," entrenched, then de-constructed, subsequently making room for the next paradigm.

Obviously, in the post-modern age, we may no longer think of scientific revolutions as occurring as a succession of periods of normal science (theoretical monism). Recent researchers such as a theoretical pluralism approach where science should be comprised of competing research paradigms. In other words, the more competition, the better the progress. What makes the third edition so interesting is the epilogue written recently (1996). The original edition as published in 1962, so the epilogue is his opportunity to respond to what critics have said about his work over the past 30 years.

Frankly I found this book difficult to understand. It isn't hard to grasp the concept of the book, but forget trying to retain anything specific.

I haven't read this book, so do not review the text, but say only that I bought it for a teacher in Meghalaya, India who is taking post-graduate studies and needs it for his own classes. He was extremely appreciative to receive this book and will use it to help him serve his community better.

When a book has so many enthusiastic supporters and detractors, it's surely a classic. Kuhn delivered one of the all-time landmarks of the philosophy of science, with the potential to truly capture the interest of the informed layperson. However, it's far from foolproof, as if any work of philosophy could deliver ALL the answers. You can see many of the other reviews here for very specific critiques from the hardcore philosophy crowd. For the interested and educated general reader, Kuhn supplies an inherently fascinating historical focus on the way science has worked over the eons, and any reader could enjoy his highly plausible connections between the behavior of scientists and the structure of revolutions. He also gets credit for defining the term "paradigm" - which was once much more useful than today's trendy buzzword lovers could imagine.

However, I tend to agree with some of the biggest philosophical critiques of Kuhn's theory, particularly the fact that he was able to come up with very few examples of supposed scientific revolutions. Meanwhile, Kuhn's theory is completely at odds with the vast majority of scientific progress that is not necessarily "revolutionary." One could plausibly condemn Kuhn for coming up with his theory first, finding historical episodes that could be used as proof, and ignoring historical evidence that does not fit the theory. This is hardly the method followed by the groundbreaking scientists lauded by Kuhn. Also, while nobody should expect a work of philosophy to be generally accessible, Kuhn badly damages his interesting ideas with wooden prose that is nearly impenetrable, with entire sentences bordering on incomprehensibility. For example, "those questions will seem ever more urgent if we now note one respect in which the terms used so far may be misleading." In his introduction, Kuhn succeeds in obfuscating his major philosophical question to the point of absurdity, in asking "how could history of science fail to be a source of phenomena to which theories about knowledge may legitimately be asked to apply?" Kuhn immediately alienates many potentially fascinated general readers and sets himself up for severe criticism from the small body of professional philosophers who think that this kind of language is more insightful than the straight talk delivered by revolutionary scientists. [~doomsdayer520~]

Although written in 1962, this book is as valid now as ever, perhaps more so. Right now we are witnessing a paradigm shift. Move over Big Bang, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and mathematical anbstraction in general, and say hello to Plasma Cosmology and The Electric Universe!

Iconic? Absolutely. Influential? Undoubtedly. The source of an incredible amount of philosophical error and mischief? Yes - perhaps more so than any other book of the 20th century. Was this despite its many errors? I doubt it. I think it was precisely BECAUSE of its many errors it became so popular. But to explain...

The primary implication of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is that science has no, and should be granted no, privileged standing amongst competing methods of ascertaining reality. It claims that knowledge is "created" merely by "assent" (not *discovered*), and likens the replacement of one theory with another - like Newtonian physics with Einsteinian - to "religious conversion" (an act regard by most critical thinkers as the example par excellence of irrationality).

That being the case, it is no wonder that the book should have become so popular amongst members of the softer sciences, like sociology, philosophy, political science, history, etc., as well as amongst the clearly insane, like astrologers, religious lunatics, and palm readers. To quote Kuhn himself, "as in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice - there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community". Well, of course not, once it has been adopted as a premise that nothing about the world-in-itself can ever be known. All "facts", in that case, only become a matter of *what "relevant" people decide are, or should be, the "facts" (it is no wonder that Steve Fuller has been able to make the case for Kuhn as a Platonic [in the worst way] elitist. See Fuller's "Kuhn vs. Popper" or his "Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History For Our Times").

Kuhn also argues that the idea that there has been an accumulation of objective knowledge about the world is a myth. I can only hope that those readers who may have noticed the existence of electricity, cell phones, air flight, radios, immunizations, and about three billion other discoveries and inventions over the past few hundred years, will regard Kuhn's claims as as ludicrous as they deserve to be regarded.

For an unsparing (and frequently hilarious) critique of Kuhn's philosophy (and that of Popper, Feyerabend, and Lakatos), I strongly recommend "Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a Post-Modern Cult", by the late University of Sydney philosopher David Stove.

I hope this review has been of benefit to someone.

Good luck in your studies.

Iconic? Absolutely. Influential? Undoubtedly. The source of an incredible amount of philosophical error and mischief? Yes - perhaps more so than any other book of the 20th century. Was this despite its many errors? I doubt it. I think it was precisely BECAUSE of its many errors it became so popular. But to explain...

The primary implication of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is that science has no, and should be granted no, privileged standing amongst competing methods of ascertaining reality. It claims that knowledge is "created" merely by "assent" (not *discovered*), and likens the replacement of one theory with another - like Newtonian physics with Einsteinian - to "religious conversion" (an act regard by most critical thinkers as the example par excellence of irrationality).

That being the case, it is no wonder that the book should have become so popular amongst members of the softer sciences, like sociology, philosophy, political science, history, etc., as well as amonst the clearly insane, like astrologers, religious lunatics, and palm readers. To quote Kuhn himself, "as in political revolutions, so in paradigm choice - there is no standard higher than the assent of the relevant community". Well, of course not, once it has been adopted as a premise that nothing about the world-in-itself can ever be known. All "facts", in that case, only become a matter of *what "relevant" people decide are, or should be, the "facts".

Kuhn also argues that the idea that there has been an accumulation of objective knowledge about the world is a myth. I can only hope that those readers who may have noticed the existence of electricity, cell phones, air flight, radios, immunizations, and about three billion other discoveries and inventions over the past few hundred years, will regard Kuhn's claims as as ludicrous as they deserve to be regarded.

For an unsparing (and frequently hilarious) critique of Kuhn's philosophy (and that of Popper, Feyerabend, and Lakatos), I strongly recommend "Scientific Irrationalism: Origins of a Post-Modern Cult", by the late University of Sydney philosopher David Stove.

I hope this review has been of benefit to someone.

Good luck in your studies.

Originally published in 1962 Thomas Kuhn's `The Structure of Scientific Revolutions' is widely recognized as the most influential work in the philosophy of science. It is one of those rare scientific works/commentaries that has had enduring significance outside of its specific field.

At the time of Kuhn's writing scientific progress was widely viewed an evolutionary process characterized by the gradual accumulation of knowledge and corresponding theoretical refinement. In opposition to this view, Kuhn proposed a more discontinuous or revolutionary view - one where scientific understanding undergoes periodic abrupt and radical change or paradigm shifts. In a simple Kuhnian view, paradigms can be understood as collections of shared assumptions and beliefs within scientific communities that serve to guide and interpret research. In this framework so-called `normal' science (refinement) occurs within given paradigms. Occasionally, normal science encounters sufficient anomalies or difficulties that the prevailing worldview is challenged. This challenge is often characterized, at first, by ad hoc theoretical adjustments to account for these difficulties and, in the certain circumstances eventually to the adoption of a new explanatory paradigm. A classic example of such transitions is the oft cited transitions in physics from Aristotelian to Newtonian to Relativity. Throughout the text Kuhn provides a vast number of well known as lesser known examples of paradigm shifts.

As with all meta-theories the applicability of Kuhn's model can be, and sometimes has been, overstated. That said, it is a wonderful explanatory tool in science as well as the broader socio-psychological context - we see what we believe. An interesting contemporary example of Kuhn's theory can be seen in Neo-Darwinian Theory (NDT). Although Darwinism still has outspoken supporters, from a Kuhnian perspective it could be viewed as bumping -up against the boundary of normal science. That is to say that it is encountering an increasing number of difficulties, which has triggered an accompanying growth in ad hoc adjustments. Despite its many shortcomings, however, NDT has not been replaced as a paradigm. This is not surprising in the Kuhnian view; theories in crisis tend to stick around until there is an alternative. In the case of NDT; though critics such as the Intelligent Design (ID) movement have highlighted Darwinism's deficiencies, they have not to date put forward a broadly appealing alternative.

Overall, one of those rare works that has developed an influence well beyond its' intended audience. I recommend it highly to all students of science and philosophy - it is a true classic. For an opposing view a look at some work by Popper may be instructive.

A true classic of twentieth century literature, this wonderful little book, which argues for the contingency of scientific knowledge, deserves space on the bookshelf next to The Wealth of Nations (identifying the contingency of economic wellbeing and value), Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature (causal scepticism), The Origin of Species (the contingency of biological development) and Contingency, Irony and Solidarity (the contingency of language) - along with those perennially confusing continental stalwarts Freddie Nietzsche and Ludwig Wittgenstein, as representing the fundamental underpinnings of modern Relativist thought.

Thanks to the Chomskies, Dawkinses and Sokals of this world, who have cunningly bound perfectly sensible Cognitive and Ethical Relativism to silly Post-Structuralism, proper Relativism has become a dirty word these days.

It may be unfashionable but it's also powerful, and if you want to understand it, and its power, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions - as short and beautifully written a classic of philosophy as you could possibly ask for - is as good a place as any to start.

Following publication of "Structure", Kuhn had a famous public debate with Karl Popper over what counts as science and the way in which science develops over time. Popper had, in The Logic of Scientific Discovery, made the invaluable observation that "verification" as a standard for science is too high, since as a matter of logic an argument based on induction ("since the sun has risen on every day in recorded history, therefore it will rise tomorrow") can never be proven true. The sun rising is a very good example: for all our folksy expectations, current cosmology predicts that there will be a point at some time in the distant future when the sun will explode, and therefore will not rise tomorrow.

In lieu of verification as the scientific gold standard, Popper asserted (seemingly plausibly) that valid scientific theory could be assessed by the lack of any falsifying evidence among the data. The requirement for scientific statements to be "falsifiable" is a useful contribution to the debate: To be of any use, a scientific theory must narrow down from the list of all possible outcomes a set of predicted ones, and rule the rest out. Statements which cannot be falsified by any conceivable evidence don't do that, so fail at science's fundamental task.

Thomas Kuhn's insight was to offer a historian's perspective, and to note that, while that might be theory, that's simply not what science does in practice. Scientific theories are absolutely never thrown out the moment contradictory evidence is observed: the dial is tapped, the experiment re-run, and "numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory" are devised to eliminate any apparent conflict. Indeed, when the data won't do what it's meant to, sometimes it is the question which is rejected as being irrelevant, and not the answer predicted by the theory.

All this activity takes place inside what Kuhn describes (somewhat inconsistently) as a "paradigm" - a "particular coherent tradition of scientific research". The paradigm governs not only the theory but the education, instrumentation, rules and standards of scientific practice, and is the basis on which the scientific community decides which kinds of questions are and are not relevant to the development of scientific research. A paradigm claims exclusivity over the adjudication of its own subject matter, and one only has authority to pronounce on a scientific problem once one has been fully inducted: evolutionary biologists will not take seriously the biological assertions of fundamentalist Christians, for example. Fundamentalist Christians who take biology exams will fail, and thereby will never be able to authoritatively comment on biological matters.

Paradigms are generally a useful thing for the jobbing scientist, since to her they provide a pre-agreed framework - what Dan Dennett would describe as a "crane" - on which additional scientific research can be undertaken without having, literally, to re-invent the wheel. Kuhn characterises this sort of "normal scientist" as being involved in "puzzle solving" in exactly the sense that one solves a crossword puzzle. You have a framework of rules for how to solve the puzzle; you have problems (the blank spaces on the puzzle) and you empirically obtained evidence (clues) which you manipulate using the rules to produce predictions (or answers), and each newly discovered answer then acts as an additional clue to solve the remaining problems.

Superficially, this all sounds fine, but there are brutal, jagged corals just below the water's surface: Once inside a paradigm it informs your view of the world so thoroughly it is not possible to conduct research outside it. To solve a crossword puzzle, there must first be *some* pre-determined rules of engagement (the same puzzle can be solved, differently, with different sets of rules: a "cryptic" crossword yields different answers for the same boxes, and perhaps even the same clues, to a "quick" crossword. But to solve it one needs to use one or the other). Unlike a crossword, Mother Nature doesn't come with a label saying "cryptic" or "quick". So how do we know which paradigm to use? Can the truth or falsity of the paradigm to be judged, other than in terms of the paradigm itself?

Kuhn says no. This is an immensely powerful idea. Not only does it undermine the certitude many people have about their own ways of life, it seems to opens the door to all the whacky alternatives, with no objective means of choosing between them. So can we really not choose between Radiotherapy and Healing Crystals?

That this might be the case terrifies a lot of people, especially scientists, and Kuhn gets a lot of the blame for this state of unease. Post-Modernism: It's all Kuhn's fault.

But this is surely to shoot the messenger: Kuhn's great contribution is not to say that healing crystals are in (he says nothing of the sort) but to say that the sacred and immutable link between science and truth is out, and we owe it to ourselves to keep an open mind about whatever we believe. After all, the history of science (which is what Kuhn started out writing about) is a long history of frequent revolution. Either all the theories scientists have ever believed up to the current day are baloney, always were, never really counted as science and we're just lucky to be around when the human race has finally got it right - which, to put it mildly, is wishful thinking - or the revolutionary history of science, which no-one disputes, tends to back up what Kuhn is saying.

Science does evolve, through the great algorithm of human discourse, and the dominating theories through time will tend to be the ones which most of us are persuaded work the best for us (whether we're right or not is really beside the point). What persuades in Tehran may differ from what persuades in Texas. All Thomas Kuhn cautions against is either side taking its own position as a given.

His enterprise is therefore fundamentally democratic - placing epistemological legitimacy in the hands of the entire community, as contingent and random as it may be from time to time, and not a self-selecting, self perpetuating elite.

One thing economic theory tells us is that concentrating economic control in a small part of the population (as in a monopoly) generally works out worse for everyone except the monopolist. There's no reason to suppose that concentrating intellectual authority should be any different.

In the Western Hemisphere - outside the Grateful Dead tour circuit, at any rate - intellectual authority mostly resides with established science, but it has to work - literally - to earn our respect.

The anti-Kuhn brigade like Richard Dawkins may not like that sort of accountability but, not being a scientist, I do.

Olly Buxton

Thomas Kuhn points out a lot of the sociology of how new scientific theories are accepted, and along the way 'derives' much of the remarkableness of the scientific process; people are forever saying how dry and mechanical science is, but they are ignorant and scared little you know whats more than anything else; trully, anybody who doesn't know the adventure and beauties that science reveals is mentally and emotionally sick; things like how Newtonian Mechanics is both right and wrong and every scientific theory is right and wrong which indicates research directions; when General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics corrected the problems of Newtonian Mechanics, they didn't just throw away Newtonian Mechanics, they 'generalized' and/or ate it up in the way they consumed/derived newtonian mechanics from a new higher perspective; Thomas Kuhn argues that Newtonian Mechanics cannot be derived from General Relativity, but I found his arguement unconvincing and shortsided(I forgot how/why/what; it has been awhile since I read the book, but I just reread my notes on the book last night and decided to right a review!).

I'll save some of the other remarkable things Kuhn found along the way of his historical research of science and point out one major omission that limits his seeing science in the proper light - the relation of mathematics and science. This is the major reason the book falls short in understanding the fundamental nature of science; that science/mathematics is a constructive analogy as Jacob Bronowski puts it; that science/mathematics is a unification(the derivation of newtonican mechanics from General Relativity, and chemistry from quantum mechanics are the classic scientific proofs of this effect of science), and the understanding of how that creative 'unification' of concepts solves problems works in science/mathematics.

I of course recommend reading Jacob Bronowski - particularly his "Origins of Knowledge and Imagination" above most of his other stuff. His "Ascent of Man" is more to be read for fun after knowing what he says in 'Origins.' "Ascent of Man" is just so general that if you don't know about the nature of science he teaches in his other books, then you'd read right past so much in "Ascent of Man." And, his 'Origins' book is the culmination and greatest synthesis of his insights; it is the culmination of twentieth century thought that Godel's theorem and the revolutions of science put on mankind in the twentieth century. It is the best science book outside of a good historical perspective development of a scientific theory type book like "Project Physics Course", or David Hilbert's "Geometry and the Imagination", or Morris Kline's, "Calculus."

Thomas Kuhn points out a lot of the sociology of how new scientific theories are accepted, and along the way 'derives' much of the remarkableness of the scientific process; people are forever saying how dry and mechanical science is, but they are ignorant and scared little you know whats more than anything else; trully, anybody who doesn't know the adventure and beauties that science reveals is mentally and emotionally sick; things like how Newtonian Mechanics is both right and wrong and every scientific theory is right and wrong which indicates research directions; when General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics corrected the problems of Newtonian Mechanics, they didn't just throw away Newtonian Mechanics, they 'generalized' and/or ate it up in the way they consumed/derived newtonian mechanics from a new higher perspective; Thomas Kuhn argues that Newtonian Mechanics cannot be derived from General Relativity, but I found his arguement unconvincing and shortsided(I forgot how/why/what; it has been awhile since I read the book, but I just reread my notes on the book last night and decided to right a review!).

I'll save some of the other remarkable things Kuhn found along the way of his historical research of science and point out one major omission that limits his seeing science in the proper light - the relation of mathematics and science. This is the major reason the book falls short in understanding the fundamental nature of science; that science/mathematics is a constructive analogy as Jacob Bronowski puts it; that science/mathematics is a unification(the derivation of newtonican mechanics from General Relativity, and chemistry from quantum mechanics are the classic scientific proofs of this effect of science), and the understanding of how that creative 'unification' of concepts solves problems works in science/mathematics.

I of course recommend reading Jacob Bronowski - particularly his "Origins of Knowledge and Imagination" above most of his other stuff. His "Ascent of Man" is more to be read for fun after knowing what he says in 'Origins.' "Ascent of Man" is just so general that if you don't know about the nature of science he teaches in his other books, then you'd read right past so much in "Ascent of Man." And, his 'Origins' book is the culmination and greatest synthesis of his insights; it is the culmination of twentieth century thought that Godel's theorem and the revolutions of science put on mankind in the twentieth century. It is the best science book outside of a good historical perspective development of a scientific theory type book like "Project Physics Course", or David Hilbert's "Geometry and the Imagination", or Morris Kline's, "Calculus."

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: A High School Students View on the Complex Work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn is by no means a rhetoric masterpiece of the 21st century. Thomas S. Kuhn's syntax would oftentimes make an English professor cringe. His choppy sentences continually make the book difficult to read. Numerous paragraphs must be read and reread numerous times just to decipher the text. Then it must be read yet again just to obtain Kuhn's point. After reading the same paragraph that many times the reader is exhausted and unmotivated to move on with the novel. Furthermore, the content may seem illogically structured. Certain chapters seem to be repetitive and redundant. The author will use the same case numerous times to support an objective of his, for example the phlogiston model.
Contrary to the above points, if one can decipher the vocabulary, the underlying messages Kuhn illustrates are of great insight. He delves into the realm of where science came from and how we got to where we are today. A concept most scientists are ignorant of. Examining the intricate details of the philosophy of science and paradigm changes Kuhn is able to enlighten the reader to a state of elucidation
After concluding The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the reader feel's overwhelmed. The information Kuhn presents is of great complexity, and quantity. However, once sifted through thoroughly the reader has learnt a lot. First, the reader now understands the basis of science, where, when, and how are all questions addressed by Kuhn throughout the novel. As a student of science, I was unaware of how science progressed to where it is today. I merely learn the concepts, and move on. I generally accept them and do not challenge them. After reading the novel, I now understand the importance of a paradigm change and the importance of those who challenge it. Overall, Kuhn's book gave me, the reader, a sense of why I love the subject of science so much.
Overall, the concepts and information Kuhn presents are well worth the battle of simply reading the novel. The novel should be read with purpose and discipline to obtain Kuhn's entire purpose.
"History, if viewed as a repository for more than anecdote or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed"

*I am not Tom Kozikowski -- I am a student in his high school Physics II class, and I write this with his permission*


I'm recommending The Structure of Scientific Revolution not because its a light read, but because it presents ideas that the average person will not encounter during their educational experience. Kuhn provides a perspective on the scientific world that few people ever see.

It becomes obvious that he knows a great deal about science and the history of science, but he approaches it with an outsider's perspective. As he notes in the book, perspective is a major factor in how one understands a topic, and thus he is able to understand the progress of the scientific community differently than a member of the field would. He points out that science is unique from other fields in the way that it progresses. The depth at which he analyzes the progression of scientific revolutions is unmatched by other contemporary scientific texts.

I will make a few precautionary notes about reading the novel. Kuhn's ideas are complex, and despite his efforts to communicate them effectively, are often difficult to express. One has to devote time to understand his ideas, since they are usually entirely new to the reader. Also, keep in mind that Kuhn is not diluting his ideas at all, so some readers will quickly become lost in his vocabulary and structure.

Overall, though the book is a difficult read, it is still worth it to be exposed to the ideas and concepts that Kuhn presents. Nowhere else can one see such a unique perspective on the field of science.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: A High School Students View on the Complex Work

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn is by no means a rhetoric masterpiece of the 21st century. Thomas S. Kuhn's syntax would oftentimes make an English professor cringe. His choppy sentences continually make the book difficult to read. Numerous paragraphs must be read and reread numerous times just to decipher the text. Then it must be read yet again just to obtain Kuhn's point. After reading the same paragraph that many times the reader is exhausted and unmotivated to move on with the novel. Furthermore, the content may seem illogically structured. Certain chapters seem to be repetitive and redundant. The author will use the same case numerous times to support an objective of his, for example the phlogiston model.
Contrary to the above points, if one can decipher the vocabulary, the underlying messages Kuhn illustrates are of great insight. He delves into the realm of where science came from and how we got to where we are today. A concept most scientists are ignorant of. Examining the intricate details of the philosophy of science and paradigm changes Kuhn is able to enlighten the reader to a state of elucidation
After concluding The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the reader feel's overwhelmed. The information Kuhn presents is of great complexity, and quantity. However, once sifted through thoroughly the reader has learnt a lot. First, the reader now understands the basis of science, where, when, and how are all questions addressed by Kuhn throughout the novel. As a student of science, I was unaware of how science progressed to where it is today. I merely learn the concepts, and move on. I generally accept them and do not challenge them. After reading the novel, I now understand the importance of a paradigm change and the importance of those who challenge it. Overall, Kuhn's book gave me, the reader, a sense of why I love the subject of science so much.
Overall, the concepts and information Kuhn presents are well worth the battle of simply reading the novel. The novel should be read with purpose and discipline to obtain Kuhn's entire purpose.
"History, if viewed as a repository for more than anecdote or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed"

*I am not Tom Kozikowski -- I am a student in his high school Physics II class, and I write this with his permission*


I'm recommending The Structure of Scientific Revolution not because its a light read, but because it presents ideas that the average person will not encounter during their educational experience. Kuhn provides a perspective on the scientific world that few people ever see.

It becomes obvious that he knows a great deal about science and the history of science, but he approaches it with an outsider's perspective. As he notes in the book, perspective is a major factor in how one understands a topic, and thus he is able to understand the progress of the scientific community differently than a member of the field would. He points out that science is unique from other fields in the way that it progresses. The depth at which he analyzes the progression of scientific revolutions is unmatched by other contemporary scientific texts.

I will make a few precautionary notes about reading the novel. Kuhn's ideas are complex, and despite his efforts to communicate them effectively, are often difficult to express. One has to devote time to understand his ideas, since they are usually entirely new to the reader. Also, keep in mind that Kuhn is not diluting his ideas at all, so some readers will quickly become lost in his vocabulary and structure.

Overall, though the book is a difficult read, it is still worth it to be exposed to the ideas and concepts that Kuhn presents. Nowhere else can one see such a unique perspective on the field of science.

Kuhn, like Popper before him, noticed a very important truth but failed to see it clearly and mixed it with a terribly harmful mistake. Before explaining that truth and that mistake, I would like to clarify the meaning of the term paradigm which Kuhn used in presenting his ideas. As he later acknowledged, he gave two different definitions of this term: (a) a paradigm is a successful model that is imitated to acquire new scientific knowledge, and (b) a paradigm is made up of all accepted knowledge and the methods and means of acquiring new knowledge. These two definitions become one if we assume that the concept "model" covers all accepted knowledge and the methods and means of acquiring new knowledge. The use of terms that are not clearly defined facilitates making mistakes.

The truth noticed by Kuhn is that no knowledge can be proven to be valid in a general way using deductive logic, experimentation and/or observation, or any other method. The reason for this is that all empirical testing of knowledge can be done only on a limited number of singular phenomena. This also means that no general knowledge can be produced through deductive logic, experimentation and/or observation, or any other method. General knowledge is produced by "generalizing through induction," in Newton's words, what is learned from a limited number of singular phenomena through deduction from the related empirical data. But Kuhn ignores where induction is used in scientific work, as he admits when he says, "somewhere in this maze lies the problem of induction." Those who read Kuhn can profit from learning that general knowledge cannot be produced or tested using deductive logic, experimentation and/or observation, or any other method.

The mistake made by Kuhn is that he presents the truth that he noticed, i.e., the nonexistence of a method of general validation of knowledge, as if it were related only to theoretical knowledge, or theories. He often uses the terms theory and paradigm interchangeably, for example when he talks about "paradigm shift" and choosing between rival theories. In reality, empirical knowledge is just as impossible to validate in a general way as theoretical knowledge is, the reason being the same in the two cases. Kuhn's mistake on this point makes theoretical knowledge look less reliable than experimental knowledge. In experimental work, the validation of a hypothesized knowledge is done by deducing it from the data, whereas in theoretical work, validation is done by deducing from data not the theory that is being tested but some consequences deduced from it. I explained and exemplified these operations in detail in my books.

Those who read Kuhn should avoid sharing his mistake, which closed some disciplines of science, notably psychology, to the construction and use of theories. A survey showed Kuhn as the author most frequently quoted by psychologists. Knowledge supplied by a theory in its field of validity is as sure as empirical knowledge, and in this sense, skeptics can say, "it is only scientific knowledge" just as they say, "it is only a theory." A theory is derived, not deduced, from empirical knowledge but transcends empirical knowledge. Psychologists need to learn how this is done by physicists if they want to make psychology a mature science with theories instead of "schools" like philosophy and the arts.

Kuhn also sees no difference between science and philosophy, evidently because he ignores the process of the validation of knowledge. Plato said that philosophy was only about possibilities. In opposition to this, science produces knowledge that is tested in relation to some singular phenomena and is then generalized through induction and accepted as generally valid in a certain area of reality.

Kuhn's solution to the problem of how to choose between rival theories is that Europeans have a yet non-understood ability to choose the right theories. This is an Aristotelian tautology befitting a philosopher ignorant of the methods of science. Feyerabend remarked that Kuhn failed to explain the mission of science.

One of its kind in its own subject area. Kuhn writes with clarity and passion to develop a plausible thesis about scientific discovery and how it comes about

Thomas Kuhn's book has provided comfort for me personally. There is no need to go into the details of his arguments. For example, whether the old generation has to die before paradigm shift can take place is not the issue. The issue is whether scientists resist anything new that cannot be fitted into the existing paradigm. Whether it took ten years or a lifetime for people to accept the theory of the origin of ulcers is irrelevant. I am disagreeing with the review by Peter Hobson (Groton, CT USA), 12/25/2005]. What's important is the initial reaction of the community to new ideas. I have evidence to support the observations and analysis by T. Kuhn.
Revolutionary ideas and theories gain faster acceptance if the new paradigm can quickly lead to economical and social benefits. I believe this is why the story of ulcers so quickly received the recognition of Nobel Prize in Medicine. If the idea leads to more effective treatment, who could hold up its consequences? Even the opponent would embrace it immediately because he would not want to suffer from ulcers.
The problem is that sometime the benefit of making a paradigm shift is not immediately obvious. The defendant of the old paradigm simply resists changes to protect his reputation that is merely built on perfecting the old paradigm.
It is difficult for most to appreciate the point of view expressed in Kuhn's book because most readers are not involved in a process of scientific revolution. As someone solely responsible for a scientific revolution occurring in a sub-branch of physics, I can verify based on my experience, i.e., on the reaction to our work that Kuhn is right on the money. Let me quote three remarks by the member of the community, first on my published scientific article, second on a rejected manuscript, and the third on my declined proposal to the National Science Foundation:

"To say that the conclusions drawn by the submitted article are controversial is an understatement of Herculean proportion....While scientific advancement often requires the disproving of established thought, the authors of this work attempt to do so without sufficient proof. The material responses described in this article could be ascribed to other physical processes, including those that adhere to the traditional school of thought...The urgency to abandon conventional wisdom without sound basis is disturbing."
"The Comment by xxx (two of whom are xxx Medalists) makes a very strong case for dismissing the main results of xxx (the present reviewer). Unfortunately, the Reply makes ZERO valid counterpoints and consequently should not be published. If xxx (the present reviewer) want to admit their mistakes and explain how they fell into the trap of publishing erroneous results, this might be useful so that others do not make similar mistakes in the future."
"Overall, the PI needs to calm down considerably. In this proposal and his recent papers, the PI tries valiantly to sell his work as the single most important breakthrough in the history of science! In fact, both the proposed and recent work is reasonable, but the overselling done by the PI irritates people."

I hope that people like Mr. Peter Hobson would in the future interview some people involved in scientific revolutions before making comments that could be misleading.
It is very sad that the phenomena described by Thomas Kuhn are real. I have learned to be patient and more tolerant after reading the book.
I am also very intrigued by his definition of Science as well as his statements regarding textbooks that present science as absolute truth without offering any historical perspective and describing where it comes from and who is chiefly responsible for creating it. I hope to write about these issues at another time.

Excellent book. This is a must read for anyone working in the sciences. Very well written and really brings up some interesting philosophical issues. It's a quick read too.

This book has become a classic in philosophy of science. Kuhn's description of how science works was considered by some critics to be overly relativistic, by others as irresponsible and even dangerous (e.g. Steve Fuller). Whatever one thinks of it, Kuhn took away the aura of infallibility, and described science as made by scientists - it is a human activity, and since humans are prone to error, so is science. Moreover, what is considered to be "science" cannot be established a priori or once and for all, but depends fully on the social context in which science is done.

If you know nothing about philosophy of science, this book is not an easy read, especially because in this book Kuhn describes his ideas often in a rather abstract manner. Nonetheless, for a philosophy book, it is surprisingly accessible. Kuhn attempts to avoid philosophical jargon as much as possible. Moreover, if you have a fairly basic understanding of what Kuhn is trying to say (and you can look this up in almost every encyclopedia), the book is rather easy to follow.

Kuhn is often contrasted with Karl Popper - another pioneer of 20th century philosophy of science. If you want to know what philosophy of science is about, read this book by Kuhn and afterwards Popper's classic "The Logic of Scientific Discovery". If you know the difference between Kuhn and Popper, you'll be able to find your way around in contemporary philosophy of science.

If after having read Kuhn you still don't have enough, buy Paul Hoyningen-Huene's book "Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn's Philosophy of Science" (Univ. of Chicago Press 1993), also available from Amazon.com.

To be honest this was probably one of the most chalenging books that I have read. From what I understand this was the authors first book and it trully shows, especially when one compares the writing style of the main text with the postscript (which was writen seven years later). Frankly during some parts of the book it was a chore to conintue to reading. But considering what the book it lacking I would still say that it is a must read for any science majors, and I would recomend it to anyone who is interested in how science grows and evolves overtime.
Kuhn lays out what is required for a scientific revolution to take place and how the proceses happens. His thoughts also put into prespective modern changes in the scientific comunity's accepted believes. While it does take considerable effort to get throught the book I am glad the I read it.

This book was in excellent condition, although it did not come as fast as I would have liked. I was under the impression that it would come within two weeks, but it took three weeks to arrive.

This book was in excellent condition, although it did not come as fast as I would have liked. I was under the impression that it would come within two weeks, but it took three weeks to arrive.

Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, which seems merely to be a history of scientific discovery at first glance, offered daringly original arguments for its time that proved dangerous to the common sense ideas of basic falsificationism and of scientific progress. The book is surpsingly easy to read, and the argument is quite easy to follow.

The book outlines the formation of revolutionary scientific ideas by pointing out examples from various branches of physics. For Kuhn, science is like a game of chess. "Normal science" is carried out when an existing scientific paradigm establishes rules and standards for scientific inquiry. Normal science, then, is simply playing the game by the established rules. However, no scientific theory answers every question about the world, says Kuhn, and anomolies and observations that do not fit the paradigm are either ignored or interpreted away. He likens this ignoring of potential falsifiers to a psychological experiment in which subjects were shown cards with certain "anomalies" (like a red spade) that did not fit the original "paradigm" (black spades, red hearts). The subjects in the experiment often ignored the anomalies, interpreting them as part of the existing pardigm. But as these anomolies increase, or as they gain more importance and impede scientific research, the accepted scientific paradigm goes through a state of crisis, which allows people to question its very foundations and put forth alternate theories which would establish new paradigms. To use the chess analogy, a player would notice that there is some problem with the rules (perhaps the king can never be put in check under these rules), but he would keep playing anyway, because the rules are the rules. As the "anomoly" in the rules kept popping up, the player would eventually abandon it in favor of some other proposed rules that allowed for the game to be played more effectively. This causes a revolution in the way scientists go about their research, as the rules to the game are discarded with the acceptance of a new paradigm. Relativity, then, did not "falsify" Netwonian physics--it simply offered a better way to solve scientific puzzles and provided a more satisfactory paradigm from which to interpret observations.

Indeed, an important idea for Kuhn is the idea that paradigms are necessary to make scientific observations. Kuhn argues that observation is theory-laden, that we cannot make sense of observations unless we also presuppose a paradigm that allows us to explore and interpret these observations. The paradigms allow scientists to ask the right questions, to further specialize research, and so on. Because the interpretation of observations presupposes an existing paradigm, science does not progress through observational falsification of theories and paradigms. The paradigms cannot truly be falsified, according to Kuhn, because each paradigm operates according to different rules. The ultimate rejection of paradigms is brought on by the scientists' need to solve puzzles in the face of growing crisis brought out by recognition of anomalies. Whichever paradigm offers the answers to the most questions, is the most useful, coheres best with other paradigms, is the most simple, or meets other characteristics that scientists value eventually overtakes the older paradigm. This is why, in the face of many anomolies and problems, paradigms are not abandoned until a suitable replacement has been put forth. The paradigms are too important as guides, and science would not be science without these guides.

Obviously, Kuhn's argument seems to imply that there is no scientific progress and that scientific revolutions are ultimately based upon the subjective whims of scientists. There is no way to decide the "truth" of Netwonian or relativistic physics...both are simply different paradigms. However, Kuhn himself carefully maintains that this does not mean science must become destroyed by relativism or that it cannot progress. He likens his idea to an evolutionary model--scientific paradigms evolve. As in evolution, there is no reversability...a human will not evolve back into a monkey or a bacteria cell, just as the theory of relativity will not one day be discarded in favor of Newtonian physics once again. Each new paradigm is ultimately more useful for solving the puzzles of the world and for guiding research than its successors, and this is the type of progress made by science. It is not a progress which describes reality as it really is. Rather, it is a progress which allows for specialization, directed research, and various other tools for puzzle solving.

His description of the structure of scientific revolutions is indeed very well researched and an adequate portrayal of the evolution of certain scientific ideas. His more philosophical ideas, especially those about the incommensurability of paradigms, seem to be on less solid footing, however. Whether one agrees with Kuhn or not, his book is an intellectual landmark and deserves to be read.

Kuhn makes an astounding point in this book. Although he never says it in these exact words, the point is clear to me.

A Paradigm is key to science, as well as just about any discipline of study. But what is a paradigm really? Its not a "thing" or an "object". It is an idea or series of ideas used to explain the happenings within our world. It's when "ideas" become "things" that problems occur in human reasoning. Stephen J Gould used the term "reify" to describe the turning of an idea into a concrete object.

Intelligence is an excellent example of this. Intelligence is not a "thing", it is a method of explaining how the human mind works. Intelligence tends to be reified by society, generating an enormous amount of pointless literature and heated debate trying to understand it in terms of culture, environment and genetics.

As Kuhn points out, a paradigm is a tool to be used by scientists. It's when these paradigms cease to be used as tools, and taken as ideology that they have exceeded their purpose.

Paradigms, as Kuhn points out are almost by definition known to be incomplete at the time of their inception. Kuhn argues that they do not need to be complete - they merely need to answer a series of questions. Newton for example created his laws of physics based on an absolute time/space universe. He knew at the time of his writing that this was a preposterous idea, but he carried forward with his paradigm to explain a large part of how the universe works. Newton's paradigm has obviously answered a tremendous amount, as it is his laws that enabled us to send men to the moon and back.

Kuhn arg