KUHN'S THEORY OF

SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS
FOUNDATION, GROWTH, CRITIQUES
AND INFLUENCE
Shegufta Hasnine Surur
Wahida Alam
An assignment for Economics 413 (History of Economic Thought). Submitted to
!rofessor "ahbubul "o#addem$ %e&artment of Economics$ 'ni(ersity of %ha#a
2
)*%E+
)ntroduction.................................................................................................................. 4
%ominant ideas and circumstances of ,uhn-s time.............................................. .
The Structure of Scientific /e(olutions................................................................... 0
"a1or 2riti3ues............................................................................................................. 4
)nfluences....................................................................................................................... 15
/eferences.................................................................................................................... 11
3
)*T/6%'2T)6*
Thomas ,uhn-s Structure of Scientific Revolutions$ first &ublished in 1407$
is considered one of the most im&ortant and influential boo#s of the
75th century.
)t changed the 8ay laymen and scientists loo# at the 8ay science e(ol(es.
)n the .5 years since the idea 8as introduced$ it has become a &aradigm
itself$ s&a8ning adherents and ad(ersaries ali#e.
)n the sim&lest terms$ the theory describes the &rocess through 8hich
ne8 #no8ledge and theories emerge in science. )t uses the term
-paradigm shift-$ no8 ubi3uitous in common language$ to describe this
change.
As the subtitle suggests$ the &a&er consists of four &arts.
)n the first &art 8e 8ill loo# at the bac#ground in 8hich ,uhn de(elo&ed his
ideas.
)n the second$ 8e 8ill try to outline in brief 8hat the #ey &oints in ,uhn-s ideas
8ere.
)n the third section 8e 8ill try to mention some of the most significant
criti3ues and o&&ositions of ,uhn-s theory.
9inally 8e 8ill consider some issues not altogether rele(ant$ but not so
insignificant$ about the influence of ,uhn-s theory on &o&ular culture.
4
:A2,;/6'*%
The times in 8hich Thomas ,uhn 8rote his boo#$ 8ere a &eriod in
8hich significant changes 8ere coming o(er the American society.
,uhn graduated in &hysics from Har(ard 'ni(ersity in 1443$ 8here
he also obtained ".S. and !h.%. degrees in &hysics in 1440 and
1444$ res&ecti(ely.
He later taught a course in the history of science at Har(ard from
144< until 14.0$ at the suggestion of uni(ersity &resident =ames
2onant.
,uhn is said to be hea(ily influenced by 2onant. 2onant 8as a (ocal su&&orter
of the study of History of Science as a means of inducing o&en>mindedness.
.....the characteristic of the scientific age in which we live lies
not in the relative adequacies of our conceptual schemes as to the universe but in
the dynamic character of these concepts as interpreted by
both professional scientists and laymen. Almost by definition, I would
say, science moves ahead.
1
2onant-s remar# 8as re&resentati(e of a time in '.S.A. 8hen &eo&le thought
(ery highly of science. The ad(ent of s&ace age and nuclear &o8er had o&ened
u& imaginations and contem&orary science fiction 8riters li#e )saac Asimo(
only ser(ed to fuel these ideas.
?ogical &ositi(ism 8as coming to be the dominant discourse in the &hiloso&hy
of science and in the 1435s$ ,arl !o&&er first began &ro&osing a model in
8hich scientific &rogress is achie(ed through a falsification of incorrect
theories and the ado&tion instead of theories 8hich are &rogressi(ely closer to
truth.
)n this model$ scientific &rogress is a linear accumulation of facts$ each one
adding to the last.
Thomas Kuhn, 1922 -
1996
5
,uhn$ being a &hysicist$ felt that this su&&osition of linear &rogress 8as
ob(iously at odds 8ith ho8 ma1or ideas in science differed from each other$
and ho8 ne8 ideas 8ere acce&ted by e@isting &ractitioners of a disci&line.
THE THE6/A
)n the boo# ,uhn coined se(eral terms in order to e@&lain his theory of
scientific re(olutions. The e(eryday &ractices of science under 8hich the
scientists of an era labour 8ere termed as -normal science-.
normal science! means research firmly based upon one or more past scientific
achievements, achievements that some particular scientific community
ac"nowledges for a time as supplying the foundation for its further practice.#
,uhn said that normal science 8ill often su&&ress no(elties 8hich undermine
its foundations. /esearch is therefore $a strenuous and devoted attempt to
force nature into the conceptual bo%es supplied by professional education$.
,uhn then introduced the idea of -&aradigm-$ a scientific achie(ement 8hich he
said should be sufficiently unprecedented to attract an enduring group of
adherents away from competing modes of scientific activity.#
2
!aradigms are o&en>ended$ he said$ enabling this grou& of ne8 adherents to
continue 8or#ing and building on it.
A &aradigm is essential to scientific in3uiry$ he said$ asserting that
$no natural history can be interpreted in the absence of at least some implicit
body of intertwined theoretical and methodological belief that permits selection,
evaluation, and criticism$.
2
'ntil and unless &aradigms emerge the &ractices of normal science continue to
ignore anomalies and &ractitioners of the disci&line de(ote their efforts to
affirming and reaffirming the established &aradigm.
So ho8 8ould a ne8 &aradigm emergeB 6r$ in ,uhn-s 8ords$ ho8 8ould a
&aradigm shift occurB
6
WHA SH)9TS 622'/
,uhn belie(es that it can be Cta#en for granted that the differences bet8een
successi(e &aradigms are both necessary and irreconcilableC. )n the concluding
sections of his 8or# the three reasons for this idea of -incommensurability-$ or
com&letely o&&osite (ie8&oints$ are outlined. )t is on these three reasons that
the &rogress of science rests. As the culmination of normal &uDDle sol(ing
science and the crisis of anomalies$ these three reasons 8or# to &ush ne8
&aradigms for8ard.
Reasons for new paradigms (Kuhn 1962, p. 148-150)
Proponents of
competing paradigms
1) are always at least
at cross-purposes,
Scientists will draw on different standards for acceptable
scientific research depending on the paradigm that is dominant
for them. One paradigm may not accept the evidence produced
by another, causing difficulty in communication.
2) use similar
language differently,
and
Scientists will use old terminology and apparatus in new ways
under new paradigms. This creates a communication gap when
exploring a concept in a field where various definitions are
accepted as dominant.
3) practice their trades
in different worlds.
Scientists will focus on different puzzle to solve based on the
constraints of their accepted paradigm. Therefore researchers in
the same field may use a different paradigm to explore similar
ideas because they see the problem from a different point of
view.
Although normal science is not directed to no(elties and tends at first to
su&&ress them$ it is nonetheless (ery effecti(e in causing anomalies to arise.
An initial &aradigm accounts 3uite successfully for most of the obser(ations
and e@&eriments readily accessible to that science-s &ractitioners.
/esearch results in the construction of elaborate e3ui&ment$ de(elo&ment of
an esoteric and shared (ocabulary$ refinement of conce&ts that increasingly
lessens their resemblance to their usual common>sense &rototy&es. This
&rofessionalisation leads to immense restriction of the scientist-s (ision$ rigid
science$ resistance to &aradigm change$ and a detail of information and
7
&recision of the obser(ation>theory match that can be achie(ed in no other
8ay. *e8 and refined methods and instruments result in greater &recision and
understanding of the &aradigm. 6nly 8hen researchers #no8 8ith &recision
8hat to e@&ect from an e@&eriment can they recognise that something has
gone 8rong.
2onse3uently$ anomaly a&&ears only against the bac#ground &ro(ided by the
&aradigm . The more &recise and far>reaching the &aradigm$ the more sensiti(e
it is to detecting an anomaly and inducing change. :y resisting change$ a
&aradigm guarantees that anomalies that lead to &aradigm change 8ill
&enetrate e@isting #no8ledge to the core.
*AT'/E 69 THE SH)9T
)t is interesting to note that$ ,uhn identified his theory as being analogous to
%ar8inian e(olution. 8hich in his eyes 8as a non>&ur&osi(e &rocess. He
&ointed out that e(olution is not goal>oriented. There is no &rogress in
e(olution$ only -change- o(er time 8ith 8hich s&ecies ada&t to changing
circumstances.
,uhn asserted that the scientific &rocess is no differentE there is no &rogress in
science in terms of a&&roaching any single truth. /ather the the sciences$ by
s&routing ne8 ideas and disci&lines$ sim&ly ada&t to changing e(idences and
accumulating anomalies that refuse to be e@&lained a8ay.
the resolution of revolutions is the selection by conflict within the scientific
community of the fittest way to practice future science. #
2
F he said$ dra8ing an
analogy to %ar8in-s natural selection.
)n the 8orld of &hysical science$ this &ur&oselessness of &aradigms has
&er&le@ed scientists$ and many ha(e been turned into antagonists of ,uhn-s
ideas. The notion that science is not &ursuing a &articular truth has offended
many.
Ho8e(er$ no science has seen its course go so strictly by the rules of scientific
re(olution as economics has. Any student of economics 8ill be able to &oint
out all the &oints in history 8hen an outbrea# of radical ideas challenged the
e@isting dominant ones. He 8ill also be able to describe the anomalies that led
to those ideas. The most famous of these anomalies is of course$ the ;reat
%e&ression.
8
2/)T)G'ES A*% 6!!6S)T)6*
The logical &ositi(ism school$ led by ,arl !o&&er$ has been the most (ocal
critic of ,uhn-s theory.
!o&&er-s #ey conce&t is the determining criterion of -falsification-$ o&erating as
the mechanism of natural selection in the scientific s&here. ,uhn-s is the
&o8er of the disci&linary matri@$ or C&aradigmC$ the social source of its
emergence$ and the &ursuit of Cnormal scienceC 8hich it ma#es &ossible.
!aul 9eyerabend$ another influential thin#er of that time$ argued that
underlying ,uhn-s ideas 8as some #ind of ideology. He concluded that by
saying that the &ursuit of -normal science- 8ould ine(itably gi(e rise to
anomalies$ ,uhn 8as fostering the (ery dogma that o&&ressed the scientific
&rogress. He remar#ed
&henever I read 'uhn, I am troubled by the following question( are we here
presented with methodological prescriptions which tell the scientist how to
proceed) or are we given a description, void of any evaluative element, of
those activities which are generally called *scientific!+ #
3
!o&&er$ too$ obser(ed that ,uhn-s (ersion of Cnormal scienceC had only
recently (early 14<5s) become a significant as&ect of the beha(ior of those
8ho 8or# in scientific fields and if$ indeed$ it should e(er re&resent routine
&ractice$ it 8ould signal the end of science.
An entirely different school$
4
ho8e(er$ dra8s from the fundamental ideas of
both grou&s in its efforts to measure scientific &rogress em&irically. These
efforts ho8e(er$ are still at a &rimary stage.
The So#al Hoa@
5
$ and se(eral subse3uent 8ritings as 8ell as incidents &oint to
a gro8ing trend of disli#e of scientists to8ards social science and &hiloso&hy$
&articularly 8hen these fields embar# onto an analysis of science. The original
goal of !hiloso&hy of Science or Sociology of Science 8as to include the
methodology and &ositi(ism of science as a core (alue in education.
9
)*9?'E*2ES )* !6!'?A/ 2'?T'/E
A 8ord about the 8ord -&aradigm-
!erha&s the greatest influence that ,he Structure of Scientific Revolutions has
had is not on science but on languageE more s&ecifically the 8ords &aradigm
and &aradigm shift. As /obert 9ulford &ointed out in a famous article
-eople often use $paradigm$ when they could as easily use idea, style, format,
pattern, hypothesis, or approach. .ut those are garden variety words, lac"ing
dash and chic. ,hey impress no one. $-aradigm$ appeals to the "ind of people
who say $reportage$ when they mean $reporting.$ It bestows dignity on
otherwise banal utterances.
6
6ut of its &hiloso&hical or social science conte@t$ the 8ord &aradigm has been
used first in ad(ertising$ then literature$ management$ &olitics$ music$ cinema$
theology >>> used and reused to the e@tent that it has com&letely lost its
original meaning.
-!aradigm ?ost- >>> is the title of at least fi(e boo#s and a 8ebsite. *ot
sur&risingly$ one of those boo#s is a fiction$ the first of a trilogy.
!erha&s this small s#etch by the legendary cartoonist :ob Tha(es defines
&eo&le-s &erce&tions about ,uhn-s ideas better than 8ords >>> so that 8ill be
our concluding remar#.
10
/eferences
H..................................................................
1
2onant$ =ames :.$ 6n 'nderstanding Science$ An Historical A&&roach. 144<.
*e8 Ha(en Aale 'ni(ersity !ress.
2
,uhn$ Thomas S.$ The Structure of Scientific /e(olutions$ 14I5$ 'ni(ersity of
2hicago !ress.
3
9eyerabend$ !aul$ 2onsolations for the S&ecialist$ in 2riticism and the ;ro8th
of ,no8ledge by ?a#atos and "usgra(e$ 140..
4
;odin$ :enoJt$ 6utline for a History of Science "easurement$ Winter 7557 in
Science Technology Human Kalues
5
So#al$ Alan$ A !hysicist E@&eriments With 2ultural Studies$ "ay 1440 in
?ingua 9ranca.
6
/obert 9ulford$ =une .$ 1444 in ;lobe and "ail.