quartonews.it » Math and Science » The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Foundations of the Unity of Science, Vol. 2, No. 2)

Thomas S. Kuhn History and Philosophy English

Download The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Foundations of the Unity of Science, Vol. 2, No. 2) djvu

by Thomas S. Kuhn

Author:	Thomas S. Kuhn
Subcategory:	History & Philosophy
Language:	English
Publisher:	University of Chicago Press; 2nd Enlarged edition (1970)
Pages:	210 pages
Category:	Math and Science
Rating:	4.3
Other formats:	lit mbr lrf lrf

Download DJVU Download EPUB

More...

Its publication was a landmark event in the history, philosophy, and sociology of scientific knowledge. Kuhn challenged the then prevailing view of progress in "normal science". Normal scientific progress was viewed as mulation" of accepted facts and theories.

Download (pdf, 806 Kb) Donate Read. Epub FB2 mobi txt RTF. Converted file can differ from the original. If possible, download the file in its original format.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The structure of scientific revolutions, Thomas S. Kuhn.

Thomas S. Kuhn's classic book is now av. .Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read. Start by marking The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Foundations of the Unity of Science, Vol 2, as Want to Read: Want to Read savin. ant to Read.

Flag for inappropriate content. Download Now. saveSave (International encyclopedia of unified science. saveSave (International encyclopedia of unified science For Later. International encyclopedia of unified science.

A landmark in intellectual history which has attracted attention far beyond its own immediate field. It is written with a combination of depth and clarity that make it an almost unbroken series of aphorisms. Kuhn does not permit truth to be a criterion of scientific theories, he would presumably not claim his own theory to be true. But if causing a revolution is the hallmark of a superior paradigm, has been a resounding success. According to Kuhn, science normally develops more or less smoothly within such a paradigm until an accumulation of difficulties reduces its effectiveness.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. A Synopsis from the original by Professor Frank Pajares From the Philosopher's Web Magazine. A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind.

In the structure of the scientific revolution, Kuhn brings up the occasional irrational decisions of scientist during a change of paradigm. The Essay on Paradigm In Science. However, the role of paradigm in science holds a very important position. Paradigm in science simply governs the ways in which you. quite easy to understand. People don't like change.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Foundations of the Unity of Science, Vol. 2, No. 2).

Kuhn does not permit truth to be a criterion of scientific theories, he would presumably not claim his own theory to be true. € Nicholas Wade, Science. "Perhaps the best explanation of process of discovery. "Occasionally there emerges a book which has an influence far beyond its originally intended audience.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a landmark in intellectual history which has attracted attention far beyond its own immediate field. It is written with a combination of depth and clarity that make it an almost unbroken series of aphorisms. Its author, Thomas S. Kuhn, wastes little time on demolishing the logical empiricist view of science as an objective progression toward the truth. Instead he erects from ground up a structure in which science is seen to be heavily influenced by nonrational procedures, and in which new theories are viewed as being more complex than those they usurp but not as standing any closer to the truth. Science is not the steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge that is portrayed in the textbooks. Rather, it is a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions . . . in each of which one conceptual world view is replaced by another.

Comments:

Arcanescar

First, let me state the obvious - since Kuhn is talking about the philosophy of science, this is not light reading. That said, this book is as relevant as it was when it was first published - perhaps more so. Kuhn makes a well-reasoned argument that science is not an objective search for "truth," as many people believe. Instead, "normal science" is a problem solving endeavor, solving known problems by known methods. Science only changes the rules by which it operates (its "paradigm" - that over-used and often misused term in contemporary language) only when the current paradigm causes more problems than it solves. This is the real answer to any from any field who say, "The science is settled. There is no room for discussion." Those who make that statement need to re-read Kuhn and come to grips with the reality that all knowledge is inevitably socially constructed. If you read this in graduate school, it is worth revisiting. If you have never read it and you are ready for some deep thinking, dive in. You will find your horizons expanded, and that is a good thing.

Andronrad

I found Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" very much a test to get past. Ordinarily, if a book doesn't keep my attention, or I think that it hard to peruse after the initial couple of pages, I surrender. Then again, I was dead set to endure this book, particularly given that the Times Literary supplement once portrayed it as one of "The Hundred Most Influential Books Since the Second World War".

"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", initially printed in 1962, is an examination of the historical backdrop of science. At the time of its circulation, it unsettled a couple of plumes, and keeps on doing as such today. In this book, Kuhn challenges the regular view that experimental advancement happens by the amassing of learning, prompting the improvement of acknowledged truths and hypotheses. He contends for a model whereby times of "ordinary science" are hindered by times of progressive science. It is amid such times of transformation that the advancement of experimental hypothesis happens. Kuhn portends that a standard transformation happens, whereby the tenets of examination and the bearing of exploration change, and new inquiries are asked of past information.

One sample that Thomas Kuhn utilizes as a part of his book is the Copernican Revolution. This alludes to the ideal model transformation from the Ptolemaic model of the sky, which proposed the Earth at the middle of the world, towards the heliocentric model with the Sun at the core of our Solar System. While Copernicus initially set forward this model, it was just until Galileo presented his speculations concerning movement that the heliocentric model turned into an acknowledged reality.

I wouldn't prescribe this book for the normal reader : its truly a scholastic book and there is a great deal to get your head around. By and by, I discovered this an extremely troublesome book to peruse; notwithstanding, it did get me contemplating experimental exploration and how we go about it. It is a book I accept I will return to every now and then and increase a tad bit more information every time I do. I think it would be perfect for a scientist who has an enthusiasm for logic and/or history. IJAZ DURRANI

Nameless

Science is not a purely additive process. New facts and theories are not simply added to the pile of existing ones. New knowledge and understanding often requires abandoning or drastically reconceiving old theories and observations. Kuhn explores this in great detail, and I found it fascinating and insightful.

For example, prior to the invention of the telescope, the celestial sphere was viewed as fundamentally different from the earthly sphere. But a simple look at the moon in Galileo's telescope reveals it to be a body that is very similar to the Earth. It has mountains which cast shadows as the light moves across them, and so on.

The "moon" must now be be viewed as a rather different concept, and this new conception is invoked every time one looks at it. This new "paradigm" affects other observations, such as those of Jupiter and Saturn. They are not pure, static points of light like stars, and some color and a circular shape can be see with the new telescope. Must they be bodies like that of the Moon or Earth as well?

In the book, as Kuhn presents his analysis, it seems we are also taking a deep look at epistemology, and the subtleties and differences between how something is perceived and how it is conceived. Grounded in the historical narrative of scientific advancement, I found this investigation of those difficult and elusive topics to be more enlightening than usual.

I believe that some criticize Kuhn for how sharp and discontinuous he describes his paradigm shifts to be (although I haven't looked at this closely yet, I may be mistaken). For me, this was not a main point. I enjoyed his detailed analysis of how paradigms change in general, and why this is a more accurate description of how science progresses, compared to additive models.

Bolv

This is not a book that can be read leisurely. It takes full concentration, and to be honest, I’m not sure that I caught everything. What I did catch about the theory of paradigm change and scientific revolutions was interesting. I like when he went in to the examples of different aspects of scientific revolutions in history (perhaps because those were the only concrete things he talked about). I understand that the successive steps that lead to scientific revolution and paradigm change.
What I don’t understand is the relevancy. I know that he mentions how scientific textbooks present the history of a science as linear and building towards and end goal. He mentions that there probably is no end-goal—no final, perfect truth. Does this matter to a scientist, solving “normal” science puzzles? (I guess that’s an unfair question to ask anything involving philosophy.) I wish I could have read this when it came out, and what Kuhn was claiming was revolutionary itself.

eBooks related to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Foundations of the Unity of Science, Vol. 2, No. 2):