Eric Oberheim, Review of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited (original) (raw)

Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolutions - 50 Years On

Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science, 2015

If citing, it is advised that you check and use the publisher's definitive version for pagination, volume/issue, and date of publication details. And where the final published version is provided on the Research Portal, if citing you are again advised to check the publisher's website for any subsequent corrections.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: A Review

Kuhn’s Structure has been one of the most cited books of social sciences in last century, and it is therefore, been most debated ever since it was first published in 1962. As a natural consequence it is also happen to be the most diluted in its interpretations and frequently misinterpreted. But the irony of fact is that, it is a creation of physist by training and philosopher of science by choice. The world has changed, and so as the fences of disciplines and its subject of discussion, but Structure as a brick of philosophical underpinning for understanding different disciplines has still being finding its place at the very foundation stone.

The " Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn In the “Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” Thomas Kuhn pursues developing a new way of explaining the nature of science, particularly the development of scientific thought throughout history. Thus, he poses a strong argument which lies in the idea that there is no static nature of science, and that scientific thought changes, going through revolutionary transformations. Hence Kuhn undermines logic positivism because scientific thought is explained in logical terms. The main question his position asks is, is he successful in the task he has proposed in his book? Kuhn’s principle concepts will be analyzed to study how he aims to understand the development of scientific thought. On the one hand, he defines each concept. On the other hand, each of those concepts will be analyzed in such a way to be able to argue if there is a flaw or ambiguity within the general analytical framework Kuhn deploys to explain the nature of science.

Sheldon Richmond, Review of Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions Revisited

The book is a collection of eleven essays. Apart from the introduction, the essays come from a conference on Kuhn. I take the essays to fall into two main categories, the orthodox and the revisionist. The orthodox category breaks into three sub-categories: 1) the historical, describing how Kuhn adapted his original ideas to the variety of responses they invoked; 2) the scholastic, which is involved in making fine distinctions not made by Kuhn in his own writings; and 3) the pragmatic, which seeks to find an application not made by Kuhn in his own writings. The second main category, the revisionist, also breaks into three sub-categories: these essays seek to recast 1) Kuhn as a Wittgensteinian; 2) Kuhn as an evolutionary epistemologist; and 3) Kuhn as a combination of social historian and developmental psychologist.

Normal Science and Normal Kuhn. Review of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On

1962 marked an important point in intellectual history not only for historians, philosophers, sociologists and scientists but also for educated laymen. After a long and productive decade Thomas Kuhn published his Structure of Scientific Revolutions as Volume 2 Issue 2 of the International Encyclopedia of Unified Science, edited (after the death of Otto Neurath) by Rudolf Carnap and Charles Morris. 2012 marked another important date—it was the 50th anniversary of Structure's first edition. The many conferences, workshops and presentations were documented in special issues and collections; one of them is Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions – 50 Years On, edited by William J. Devlin and Alisa Bokulich. The review aims to shed light on the collections relevance for current interdisciplinary studies.