Revolution and progress in medicine (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Philosophy and Religion (JPR), 2023
This paper reviews the literature on the history of science and the field of social development, showing the nexus between Thomas Samuel Kuhn’s seminal work, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the three paradigms of social development, namely the Dominant (Modernisation), Dependency, and Participatory (Another Development). In the history of science, Kuhn 1970 argues in his landmark work that science passes through four phases. In the first phase, scientists operate without a paradigm, and during this period, they experience all sorts of problems. The second phase sees the birth of a paradigm, and scientists begin to operate within it. In the third stage, weaknesses or flaws of the new paradigm begin to emerge. They may be explained away if they are not serious; however, if they prove otherwise, the paradigm is overturned, ushering in the fourth phase (scientific revolution). The successor follows the route followed by the predecessor; thus, the paradigm shift becomes a lif...
Medicine Studies, 2009
Taking into account how much modern medicine is a function of-and at the same time has a function in-science and technology, it is hardly surprising that both the approach of science studies and the idea of the social and cultural construction of health, disease, and bodies overlap, generally and specifically, in the realm of the novel field of MEDICINE STUDIES. The work already done in science and technology studies as well as in social studies of medicine, together with the rich tradition of medical history and philosophy of medicine, may be considered a solid base and a good vantage point for further analysis. By exploring the shifts of knowledge production in medicine we may be able to see the driving forces behind the ongoing development of medicine and the associated transformation of its social functions in a new light. Based on historiographical reconstructions we may come up with a much more broadly contextualized understanding of the ways in which science, technology, medicine and society interact and in what regard their mutual interdependencies have been undergoing profound changes for a number of decades. By tracing the channels through which key concepts defining the relationship of medicine and its social context are negotiated, we may further explore how our notions of health, disease, and humanity are continuously morphing alongside the incessant transformations of medicine. This editorial explores the aims and scope of MEDICINE STUDIES as a truly transdisciplinary endeavor.
Crossing Boundaries: Medicine, Innovations and Society
2014
Report on the International Conference “Social Sciences and Medical Innovations” Tomsk, Russian Federation, May 15–17, 2014, by Olga Zvonareva, School CAPHRI, Maastricht University, and Olga Melnikova, REC PAST-Centre, Tomsk State National Research University
Biopolitics vis-a-vis the challenge of technological progress in medicine
The issues associated with biopolitics are the cause of great controversies, mak- ing the concept almost ‘taboo’ these days. Current progress in medical technology has brought immense benefits to the whole of humanity, but it can also cause threats. The subject of this paper is to draw readers’ attention to the issues and threats related to the progress of medical technology. Biopolitics has produced various, frequently perilous, outcomes, therefore it is emphasized that biopolitical phenomena should al- ways have a legal and moral dimension. In many cases, the realm of human biology and nature is impacted to an inconceivable degree, thus biopolitics is challenged by having to answer many significant questions, requiring the development of a co- hesive state policy in this field and the provision of a legal framework for such activities.
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.
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.