7 ms·

I remember reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in a seminar on philosophies of history and being struck by how clear Kuhn’s writing and thinking was

I remember reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in a seminar on philosophies of history and being struck by how clear Kuhn’s writing and thinking was. This quote from the article sums up why the book resonated with me: > Kuhn is a realist, in that he believes in some external, material reality beyond our language and cultural constraints, but he is simultaneously a relativist in that he has no access to nor can say anything definitive about that outside world independent of language and the conceptual categories that lead us to think this or that about external reality. The gist of his thesis, if I recall correctly, is that scientists are indeed progressing towards a deeper understanding of the universe, but the process gets messy sometimes. When we hit an inflection point, and the current paradigm for a field (such as physics) breaks down, multiple theories emerge to restore the internal logic of the field, and the proponents of each camp compete with each other for dominance. It gets messy when some scientists, who have dedicated their lives to the old paradigm, are confronted with the idea that their paradigm is outdated, and therefore their life’s work is kinda outdated. Obviously you can look at it another way and say that we’re all in it together and their work led us to discover the limits of the paradigm, but the reality seems to be that this is a harsh reality to live through, and the old paradigm scientists get reactionary and sometimes actively obstruct the paradigm shift. But the truth eventually comes out when the new paradigm’s theories correctly explain the problems that the old paradigm couldn’t explain, and these new theories get backed by experimental evidence. I think Kuhn goes so far as to say that sometimes the old paradigm can only be laid to rest when its last proponents die.

gboudrias 8y ago
> The gist of his thesis, if I recall correctly, is that scientists are indeed progressing towards a deeper understanding of the universe Interpreting Kuhn is an art unto itself, but I find rather that he is saying progressed can't be measured and therefore can't be inferred. He wouldn't be much of a relativist otherwise! I'm not sure but I think he uses the word "incommensurability", which implies an absence of indicators of progress (if not him then certainly some interpretations of his book use that very word). This is not to say that I agree, but it's the cold logic of it that makes him hard to refute. Rather, pragmatists like me have resolved to ignore him and enjoy our iPhones and lasers.
- grey-area 8y ago
  Nothing in Kuhn precludes iphones or lasers. His critique is more of the way the history of science is presented (as an inevitable succession of triumphs on the way to a single objective truth, each building on the last), than a rejection of objective progress or the scientific method.
  - gboudrias 8y ago
    He's the poster child of epistemological relativism in science.... Whether he meant this or not I can't say, but his book doesn't seem overly concerned about history for its own sake. I find it too easy to get lost in the hidden meaning of what he meant or meant to say though, as opposed to what he has actually written. And of course Kuhn isn't opposed to the idea of progress, he's simply raising the question "what really is progress and how can we know". This was necessary at the time, but the trivialization of "advanced" technology has made his point outdated in my opinion (if still perfectly valid in a logical sense). It's almost unthinkable (to me) that Kuhn would've written his famous book in the current era.
    - grey-area 8y ago
      His book, as actually written, is mostly about the history of science. From memory it's pretty straightforward, short, and not a difficult read. The themes dealt with are timeless IMO, and just as relevant today. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't read it to spend a few hours doing so.
      - 8bitsrule 8y ago
        Yes. Before I read Kuhn, Popper, Polanyi and Feyerabend, I had naively thought of science as a means to a higher, more solid 'truth'. Over time I realized that (verified!) observations are more fundamental - bricks - than the interpretations (temples) made of those bricks.
        munificent 8y ago
8077628 8y ago
Kuhn's a realist... someone needs to tell the Humanities departments this because it's definitely not the interpretation they've been running with!
- Animats 8y ago
  No, Kuhn represented the "pro-humanities" view. The hard line was from Karl Popper: if it's not falsifiable, it's not science. If you can clearly demonstrate a violation of F = m*a, it's gone. Popper's standards exclude sociology, psychology, theology, economics, and most of the "soft" sciences. This annoyed many people who claim to be doing science. Kuhn was willing to consider them science, but had to redefine science to make that work. Falsifiable theories allow reliable predictions. So they lead to engineering, and stuff that works. Although Popper's position is currently unpopular, he wasn't wrong.
  - cantankerous 8y ago
    The shortcoming with that line of reasoning is that it's still not wholly satisfying. Falsifiability is probably necessary but not sufficient for what most people consider to be science. The problem of induction still stands and falsifiability doesn't have much to say about it. Focusing on falsifiability seems incomplete as a philosophy of science.
    - basetop 8y ago
      Actually what most people consider science is in line with Popper's view. When most people think science, they think the "hard sciences" - physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's fairly recently that the idea of the "soft sciences" ( sociology, economists, etc ) being real science has become popular. Richard Feynman called "soft science" a pseudoscience, which I completely agree with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo Humanities departments around the country essentially appropriated the good name of science at add more legitimacy to their "soft science". It's similar to how "christian science" or "scientology" appropriated the good name of science to legitimatize themselves in the eyes of the public. Creationists have even created creationism "science" to make themselves look more legitimate.
kontorStol 8y ago
"I think Kuhn goes so far as to say that sometimes the old paradigm can only be laid to rest when its last proponents die." Or sometimes the old paradigm turns into religion
- Merrill 8y ago
  "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck Or the shorthand version "Science advances one funeral at at a time."
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
FabHK 8y ago
> how clear Kuhn’s writing and thinking was I thought there were, famously, several dozen slightly different (incommensurable?) definitions (or interpretations) of "paradigm" alone in the text.

gboudrias 8y ago

> The gist of his thesis, if I recall correctly, is that scientists are indeed progressing towards a deeper understanding of the universe Interpreting Kuhn is an art unto itself, but I find rather that he is saying progressed can't be measured and therefore can't be inferred. He wouldn't be much of a relativist otherwise! I'm not sure but I think he uses the word "incommensurability", which implies an absence of indicators of progress (if not him then certainly some interpretations of his book use that very word). This is not to say that I agree, but it's the cold logic of it that makes him hard to refute. Rather, pragmatists like me have resolved to ignore him and enjoy our iPhones and lasers.

grey-area 8y ago
Nothing in Kuhn precludes iphones or lasers. His critique is more of the way the history of science is presented (as an inevitable succession of triumphs on the way to a single objective truth, each building on the last), than a rejection of objective progress or the scientific method.
- gboudrias 8y ago
  He's the poster child of epistemological relativism in science.... Whether he meant this or not I can't say, but his book doesn't seem overly concerned about history for its own sake. I find it too easy to get lost in the hidden meaning of what he meant or meant to say though, as opposed to what he has actually written. And of course Kuhn isn't opposed to the idea of progress, he's simply raising the question "what really is progress and how can we know". This was necessary at the time, but the trivialization of "advanced" technology has made his point outdated in my opinion (if still perfectly valid in a logical sense). It's almost unthinkable (to me) that Kuhn would've written his famous book in the current era.
  - grey-area 8y ago
    His book, as actually written, is mostly about the history of science. From memory it's pretty straightforward, short, and not a difficult read. The themes dealt with are timeless IMO, and just as relevant today. I'd encourage anyone who hasn't read it to spend a few hours doing so.
    - 8bitsrule 8y ago
      Yes. Before I read Kuhn, Popper, Polanyi and Feyerabend, I had naively thought of science as a means to a higher, more solid 'truth'. Over time I realized that (verified!) observations are more fundamental - bricks - than the interpretations (temples) made of those bricks.
      - munificent 8y ago

8077628 8y ago

Kuhn's a realist... someone needs to tell the Humanities departments this because it's definitely not the interpretation they've been running with!

Animats 8y ago
No, Kuhn represented the "pro-humanities" view. The hard line was from Karl Popper: if it's not falsifiable, it's not science. If you can clearly demonstrate a violation of F = m*a, it's gone. Popper's standards exclude sociology, psychology, theology, economics, and most of the "soft" sciences. This annoyed many people who claim to be doing science. Kuhn was willing to consider them science, but had to redefine science to make that work. Falsifiable theories allow reliable predictions. So they lead to engineering, and stuff that works. Although Popper's position is currently unpopular, he wasn't wrong.
- cantankerous 8y ago
  The shortcoming with that line of reasoning is that it's still not wholly satisfying. Falsifiability is probably necessary but not sufficient for what most people consider to be science. The problem of induction still stands and falsifiability doesn't have much to say about it. Focusing on falsifiability seems incomplete as a philosophy of science.
  - basetop 8y ago
    Actually what most people consider science is in line with Popper's view. When most people think science, they think the "hard sciences" - physics, biology, chemistry, etc. It's fairly recently that the idea of the "soft sciences" ( sociology, economists, etc ) being real science has become popular. Richard Feynman called "soft science" a pseudoscience, which I completely agree with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWr39Q9vBgo Humanities departments around the country essentially appropriated the good name of science at add more legitimacy to their "soft science". It's similar to how "christian science" or "scientology" appropriated the good name of science to legitimatize themselves in the eyes of the public. Creationists have even created creationism "science" to make themselves look more legitimate.

kontorStol 8y ago

"I think Kuhn goes so far as to say that sometimes the old paradigm can only be laid to rest when its last proponents die." Or sometimes the old paradigm turns into religion

Merrill 8y ago
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." -- Max Planck https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Max_Planck Or the shorthand version "Science advances one funeral at at a time."

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

FabHK 8y ago

> how clear Kuhn’s writing and thinking was I thought there were, famously, several dozen slightly different (incommensurable?) definitions (or interpretations) of "paradigm" alone in the text.