Thomas Kuhn

Pendant un demi-siècle, la méthode appropriée en philosophie des sciences dans la tradition continentale était l'étude historique ; dans la tradition anglosaxonne, l'analyse logique. Ce clivage au sein du discours philosophique s'est grandement estompé de nos jours. D'une part, Kuhn a défendu la pertinence philosophique de l'histoire des sciences. D'autre part, Vuillemin et Gilles-Gaston Granger ont promu l'étude de la philosophie analytique et l'emploi de ses techniques logiques. Le rapprochement des deux traditions a pris encore une nouvelle tournure dans les (...) derniers textes de Feyerabend et dans les travaux de Ian Hacking. Celui-ci associe délibérément les instruments historiques de l'école française avec les procédés logiques de l'école nordaméricaine. Quelle est la signification de ce rapprochement ? Quels problèmes fait-il surgir ? Quelles directions de recherche ouvre-t-il ? Telles sont les questions que nous aborderons par le biais d'une étude comparée de certains développements récents de la philosophie des sciences en France et en Amérique du Nord. For over half a century the continental tradition favored a historical method in philosophy of science, while the Anglo-American tradition promoted a logical method. In recent years this contrast has tended to lessen. On the one hand, there has been a growing interest since the 1970s in France for the analytic tradition, due to the pioneering studies of Vuillemin and Gilles-Gaston Granger. On the other hand, Kuhn has brought out the philosophical relevance of history of science. This tendency takes a new turn in Feyerabend's final texts as well as in the works of Ian Hacking. The latter deliberately combines the historical instruments of the French school with the logical techniques of the North-American school. How to understand this evolution ? What directions of research does it open up ? I address these questions by way of a comparative study of some recent developments in philosophy of science both in France and North America. (shrink)

Philosophers have long tried to understand scientific change in terms of a dynamics of revision within ‘theoretical frameworks,’ ‘disciplinary matrices,’ ‘scientific paradigms’ or ‘conceptual schemes.’ No-one, however, has made clear precisely how one might model such a conceptual scheme, nor what form change dynamics within such a structure could be expected to take. In this paper we take some first steps in applying network theory to the issue, modeling conceptual schemes as simple networks and the dynamics of change as cascades (...) on those networks. The results allow a new understanding of two traditional approaches—Popper and Kuhn—as well as introducing the intriguing prospect of viewing scientific change using the metaphor of selforganizing criticality. (shrink)

En este capítulo, analizo a qué se refiere Kuhn cuando habla de metáfora en las Conferencias Notre Dame, pero sobre todo a explorar a qué no se refiere. En la primera sección, analizo por qué Kuhn usa el término “metáfora” para referirse al proceso de aprendizaje de lenguaje científico, en particular, los paralelismos que encuentra entre ambos fenómenos. En la segunda sección, se presentan algunos aspectos centrales de dos teorías influyentes sobre la metáfora: la teoría del mapeo estructural y la (...) teoría de las metáforas conceptuales. Luego, en la sección III, vuelvo a Kuhn para ver las diferencias cruciales que encontramos entre los procesos metafóricos y el proceso de ostensión del que habla el autor. Finalmente, presento una noción del segundo Wittgenstein, la idea de figura, para ofrecer una nueva forma de interpretar la idea de que el cambio revolucionario involucra un cambio en la metáfora central. (shrink)

This book contains the text of Thomas S. Kuhn's unfinished book, The Plurality of Worlds: An Evolutionary Theory of Scientific Development, which Kuhn himself described as a return to the central claims of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and the problems that it raised but did not resolve. The Plurality of Worlds is preceded by two related texts that Kuhn publicly delivered but never published in English: his paper "Scientific Knowledge as Historical Product" and his Shearman Memorial Lectures, "The Presence (...) of Past Science." An introduction by the editor describes the origins and structure of The Plurality of Worlds and sheds light on its central philosophical problems. -/- Kuhn's aims in his last writings are bold. He sets out to develop an empirically grounded theory of meaning that would allow him to make sense of both the possibility of historical understanding and the inevitability of incommensurability between past and present science. In his view, incommensurability is fully compatible with a robust notion of the real world that science investigates, the rationality of scientific change, and the idea that scientific development is progressive. (shrink)

We reconstruct Kuhn’s philosophy of measurement and data paying special attention to what he calls the “fifth law of thermodynamics”. According to this "law," there will always be discrepancies between experimental results and scientists’ prior expectations. The history of experiments to determine the values of the fundamental constants offers a striking illustration of Kuhn’s fifth law of thermodynamics, with no experiment giving quite the expected result. We highlight the synergy between Kuhn’s view and the systematic project of iteratively determining the (...) value of physical constants, initiated by spectroscopist Raymond Birge, that was ongoing when Kuhn joined Berkeley in 1956. Our analysis sheds light on various underappreciated aspects of Kuhn’s thought, especially his notion of progress as improvement in measurement accuracy. (shrink)

We focus on a neglected aspect of scientific theory choice: how the selection of theories affects epistemic values. Building on Kuhn, we provide a general characterization of the feedback-loop dynamic between theories and values in theory choice as analogous to the relationship between organisms and the environment in niche construction. We argue that understanding theory choice as niche construction can explain how certain values acquire more weight and a specific application over time, and how resistance to scientific change can, therefore, (...) arise. We illustrate our picture by looking at the Mendelian–biometrician controversy. (shrink)

In this paper, we will analyze the relationships among three important philosophical theses in Kuhn’s thought: the plurality of worlds thesis, the no universal algorithm thesis, and the niche-construction analogy. We will do that by resorting to a hitherto neglected notion employed by Kuhn: the idea of a feedback loop. We will show that this notion captures an important structural aspect of the epistemic dynamics at work in each of the three theses, therefore allowing us to read them as constituting (...) a virtuous epistemic cycle. Finally, we will apply our unified interpretation of the three theses to scientific practice to sketch a novel neo-Kuhnian picture of theory choice. (shrink)

This paper explores Thomas Kuhn’s mature conception of incommensurable theories as collective structured lexicons that are not mutually translatable. As will be argued, his view on this issue can profitably be approached in the light of the broad pragmatist attitude that one finds at the core of Wittgenstein’s late philosophy of language, which can also consistently be ascribed to Kuhn.

This is an edited transcription of Thomas S. Kuhn’s “Does Knowledge ‘Grow’?”.

Kuhn’s analysis of the structure and function of the scientific community has been recently re-interpreted as a seminal contribution to the so-called social epistemology of science. Kuhn’s social epistemology should be considered as part of a normative-descriptive philosophical framework in which epistemological, historical, sociological, and psychological elements are interconnected. In this chapter, I will compare Kuhn’s seminal insights with two contemporary approaches to the social epistemology of science, namely: the development of idealised formal models of the scientific community and the (...) use of qualitative studies for philosophical purposes. On the one hand, these contemporary approaches to social epistemology may be regarded as developing some of Kuhn’s views in new and exciting ways. On the other hand, however, it is still not entirely clear which kind of general philosophical ‘image of science’ they are contributing to. This chapter, therefore, aims at illuminating how analysing some of the contemporary debates in social epistemology through the lenses of Kuhn’s philosophy may recast under a new light the issue of the value of the study of the social dimension of scientific research for general philosophy of science. (shrink)

This chapter discusses whether the appropriation of Kuhnian thoughts by the so-called Strong Programme in the sociology of scientific knowledge is appropriate. In order to answer the question of appropriate appropriation, Kuhn’s and the Strong Programme’s stances on two “isms” are compared: relativism and naturalism. It is shown that the Strong Programme clearly goes beyond Kuhn and breaks more radically with philosophical tradition. Nevertheless, there are also philosophical continuities and similarities.

Thomas Kuhn is widely considered as one of the most important philosophers of science in the 20th century and his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is regarded as one of the most influential works in the philosophy of science. This book not only revisits his legacy in the history and philosophy of science but also explores and reflects on the prospect of the Kuhnian philosophy. Moreover, it includes the edited text of Kuhn’s ‘Does Knowledge Grow?’, which was never published before. (...) Comprised of 15 newly written chapters by leading Kuhn scholars and philosophers of science across the globe from ten countries, this book is of great interest to researchers and advanced students, but also to general readers. (shrink)

Despite his enormous influence on the philosophy of science, Kuhn seems to have been unfairly treated by philosophers. His work was often oversimplified, misinterpreted, and quickly dismissed. The legacy of Kuhn for contemporary philosophy of science seems to be unfortunately thin. This book revisits his legacy for the history and philosophy of science and reflects on the prospect of the Kuhnian philosophy of science. It explores Kuhnian or neo-Kuhnian approaches to central issues in twenty-first philosophy of science. It also rereads (...) Kuhn's published and unpublished work and reassesses its philosophical significance and historical context. (shrink)

Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions has sold more than one million copies since its publication in 1962, is one of the most cited academic books of all time, and continues to be read and studied today. This volume of new essays evaluates the significance of Kuhn's classic book in its changing historical context, including its initial reception and its lasting effects. The essays explore the range of ideas which Kuhn made popular with his influential philosophy of science, including (...) paradigms, normal science, paradigm changes, scientific revolutions, and incommensurability; and they also look at less-studied themes in his work, including scientific measurement, science education, and science textbooks. Drawing on the latest scholarship as well as unpublished material in the Thomas Kuhn Archives at MIT, this volume offers a comprehensive way into Kuhn's philosophy and demonstrates the continuing relevance of his ideas for our understanding of science. (shrink)

This chapter examines the legacy of Kuhn’s Structure for normative philosophy of science. As an argument regarding the history of 20th century philosophy of science, I contend that the main legacy of Structure was destructive: Structure shifted philosophy of science away from addressing general normative philosophical issues (e.g., the demarcation problem, empirical testability) towards more deflationary and local approaches to normative issues. This is evident in the first generation of post-Structure philosophers of science in the 1980s and 1990s, who adopted (...) a pluralist approach to HPS. As a metaphilosophical argument regarding the methods adopted in HPS, I argue that there are a plurality of legitimate philosophical methodologies for inferring normative claims from historical cases. I frame this argument as a response to Pitt’s dilemma of case studies. I reject Pitt’s dilemma for its presupposition of an unrealistic and unfruitful standard (viz., epistemic certainty) for assessing HPS arguments and its analysis of philosophical methodology at the level of individual arguments. Pitt’s dilemma is most usefully understood as identifying potential points of criticism for HPS arguments. -/- The chapter begins with an examination of Kuhn’s normative philosophy of science in Structure and his position that historical cases provide evidence for philosophical claims. Kuhn’s philosophical methodology is insufficiently articulated, and his utilization of case studies is subject to objections (viz., interpretative bias, hasty generalization) implied by Pitt’s dilemma. I subsequently examine four post-Kuhnian methodological perspectives: (1) Ian Hacking’s particularism, (2) Helen Longino’s practice-based approach, (3) Michael Friedman’s neo-Kantianism, and (4) Hasok Chang’s complementary science. These views suggest alternative methodological strategies in HPS for addressing normative issues. I conclude by articulating some outstanding methodological challenges for the pluralist tradition of HPS—associated with the Stanford and Minnesota schools of philosophy of science—that emerged in the 1980s and remains influential. (shrink)

Thomas Kuhn’un ufuk açıcı eseri Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı’nda yer verdiği bilimin yapısı ve işleyişi konusundaki tespitleri ve bilimin gerçek doğasını anlama yönündeki girişimleri bilime yönelik sergilenen pozitivist bakış açısını değiştirerek eğitici ve öğrencilerin modern bilim anlayışının özelliklerini daha iyi anlamalarında ve eğitim alanında yeni düzenlemelerin yapılmasında giderek etkili olmaktadır. Başta fen eğitimi araştırmacıları olmak üzere her geçen yıl eğitimciler tarafından Kuhn’un çalışmalarına yönelik artan ilgi ve başvuru bu durumu destekler niteliktedir (Loving ve Cobern, 2000, s. 187). Eğitim araştırmalarında Kuhn’un görüşlerinin (...) etkisinin en çok hissedildiği alanlar kavramsal değişim araştırmaları, yapılandırmacı öğrenme yaklaşımı, Bilim, Teknoloji ve Toplum çalışmaları ile bilime ilişkin kültürel çalışmalar gösterilebilir (Matthews, 2022: 38). Fen eğitimi araştırmalarında ise kavramsal değişim kuramları ile yapılandırmacı öğrenme kuramlarında bu etki görülmektedir (Loving ve Cobern, 2000, s. 187). Fen eğitimi ve öğrenimi konusundaki mevcut yaklaşımlar göz önüne alındığında Kuhn’un düşüncelerinin eğitim alanındaki yansımaları yapılandırmacı öğrenme kuramının temel kaynaklarından birisi olarak değerlendirilmekte (Hodson, 1988, s. 32), bilimsel ilerleme kapsamında paradigma, paradigma değişimi ve paradigmaların eşölçülemezliği gibi bilimin işleyişine yönelik belirlemeleri ise kavramsal değişim kuramında sıklıkla başvurulan görüşler olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Kavramsal değişim kuramlarını desteklemek amacıyla birçok eğitimci (Loving ve Cobern, 2000; Songer ve Linn, 1991; Duschl ve Gitomer, 1991; Metz, 1991) tarafından Kuhn’un bilimsel ilerlemeyi örneklendirmek üzere başvurduğu fizik gibi bilimlerde görülen gelişim ve değişim ile bilimlerde meydana gelen paradigma değişiklerine yönelik düşünceleri, eğitimde gerçekleşen bireysel gelişim ve değişim sonucunda insan zihninde meydana gelen bilişsel değişimler ve kavramsal değişimlerle ilişkilendirilerek öğrencilerin eğitilmesine yönelik araştırmalarda kullanılmaktadır. Fen eğitimi özelinde kavramsal değişim araştırmaları bireysel öğrenme sırasında ya da sonucunda zihinde gerçekleşen kavramsal değişim ve bilişsel gelişim aşamaları ile bilimsel devrimler sonucunda bilim insanları ve bilim topluluğunda meydana gelen kavramsal değişim ve bilimin gelişim aşamaları arasında benzerlik kurularak öğrencilerin fen öğrenimi sırasındaki zihinsel durumlarının araştırmacılar tarafından daha iyi anlaşılabilmesi amacıyla ileri sürülmektedir (Hewson, 1981, s. 383). Kavramsal değişim araştırmaları, Piaget’nin (1969) çocukların bilişsel gelişimi konusundaki görüşleri ile Thomas Kuhn'un (1970a) bilimsel bilginin tarihsel gelişimi hakkındaki çalışmalarının ilişkilendirilmeye başlanmasından yola çıkılarak inşa edilmekle birlikte kavramsal değişim kuramı ya da yaklaşımı fen eğitimi araştırmalarında ön plana çıkan bir yöntem ya da paradigma haline gelmeye başlamıştır (Abell, Appleton, ve Hanuscin, 2013, s. 7; 59). Kavramsal değişim konusunda araştırma yapanlar Kuhn’un bilimin yapısı hakkındaki görüşlerinden hareketle öğrencilerin eğitim alırken karşılaştıkları yeni bilgiler ile zihinlerindeki mevcut ön kabuller ve bilgiler arasındaki uyum ya da uyumsuzluk durumunu belirtmek amacıyla yararlanmaktadırlar (Abimbola 1987, Duit 1991, Villani, 1992). Bu kapsamda çalışmada ilk olarak fen eğitimi alanında kavramsal değişim yaklaşımının temel unsurlarına öncülük eden Kuhn’un bilim anlayışı çerçevesinde bilimsel ilerleme, paradigma değişimi ve farklı paradigmaların eşölçülmezliğine yönelik görüşlerinin detaylarına yer verilerek kavramsal değişim yaklaşımını hangi açılardan etkilediğinin tespiti yapılmaktadır. Ardından Kuhn’un fen eğitimine yönelik görüşleri doğrultusunda ileri sürdüğü öğrencilerin zihninde paradigma gibi önceden bir kabul olduğu düşüncesi sonucunda eğitim araştırmalarında öğrenci merkezli anlayışın ön plana çıkması ile kavramsal değişim yaklaşımının detaylarına yer verilmektedir. Son olarak Margaret Masterman’ın belirlemeleri ile Kuhn’un Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı’nda paradigma kavramını çeşitli anlamlarda kullanmasının kavramsal değişim yaklaşımının temel öğretilerine hangi açılardan kaynaklık ettiği vurgulanmaktadır. Böylelikle bilim tarihinde ya da bilimsel ilerleme süreçlerinde görülen kavramsal değişim ile eğitimcilerin yararlandığı bireylerin zihinlerinde gerçekleşen kavramsal değişime yönelik kurulan benzerlik ilişkisinde öğrencilerin bilişsel ve zihinsel durumlarını daha iyi anlamak için başvurulan kavramsal değişim yaklaşımına ilişkin öğeler derinleştirilerek Kuhn’un görüşlerinin bu öğelerle nasıl ilişkilendirildiği ortaya konulmaktadır. (shrink)

Thomas S. Kuhn’s monograph The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Structure) in which Kuhn introduced his seminal phase model for the development of science was one of the most influential books in philosophy of science from the twentieth century. The central ideas about paradigms and revolutions that Kuhn presented in this monograph have not only become part of the standard curriculum across a wide range of academic fields; they have also made deep imprints on science policy as well as on our (...) everyday thinking about how frames of mind guide our actions. Kuhn’s Structure not only provided a new perspective on how science develops; it also constituted an important contribution to an emerging naturalization of scholarship in philosophy of science by arguing that philosophical analyses of science had to be based on studies of science as it had been practiced through history. -/- Despite these immense successes, reservations about Kuhn and the position that he presented in Structure have also been aired in many quarters of academia. Many philosophers have been outraged over the notion of incommensurability. Many historians have been skeptical about the appeal to general structures. This being said, Kuhn himself often had reservations about the ways in which his work was interpreted and used for purposes that he had never intended. Wray’s monograph is an examination of this intriguing tension between the immense success of Structure and the reservations that have remained against it, especially among philosophers and historians. -/- . (shrink)

No capítulo X de A Estrutura das Revoluções Científicas (1962) de Thomas Kuhn o conceito de paradigma figura como elemento filosófico central na tensão que se estabelece entre o âmbito perceptivo/cognitivo versus o âmbito ontológico do “problema da mudança de mundo”. No presente artigo, apresento alguns desdobramentos do conceito de paradigma com o objetivo de indicar dois sentidos principais para o termo subjacentes às formulações kuhnianas no capítulo X e que são desenvolvidos na obra tardia do autor, a saber: (1) (...) o ‘paradigma’ como exemplar, apresentado em “Postscript – 1969” (1970) e “Seconds thoughts on paradigms” (1977); e (2) o ‘paradigma’ como léxico, apresentado principalmente, em, “Metaphor in science” (1979), “Commensurability, comparability, communicability” (1983), “Possible worlds in history of science” (1989), “The road since Structure” (1990) e “Afterwords” (1993). Através do conceito de exemplar, explicito a função cognitiva que os paradigmas exercem nos membros das comunidades científicas: a singularidade dos exemplares reside não apenas no fato de eles serem exemplos-padrão para os membros de uma comunidade, mas em serem expressão de um processo cognitivo mais geral que já está pressuposto no desenvolvimento da atividade científica. Através do conceito de léxico, explicito a função constitutiva dos paradigmas como princípios a priori, porém dinâmicos e relativizados, como condições de possibilidade para a experiência do conhecimento, sendo, em particular, determinantes na experiência do sujeito no âmbito científico. Nesse sentido, a articulação teórica proposta nesse artigo evidencia que a análise do empreendimento científico na Estrutura considera processos cognitivos e ontológicos do sujeito epistêmico expressos por meio do conceito de paradigma. No entanto, essa compreensão é obscurecida diante do emprego polissêmico e impreciso do termo no decorrer de toda a obra e que se apresenta de modo particularmente conflitante no capítulo X. Palavras-chave: exemplar; léxico; paradigma; mudança de mundo; Thomas Kuhn. (shrink)

It is quite unequivocal that Kuhn was committed to (some version of) naturalism; that he defended, especially in his later work, the autonomy of scientific rationality; and that he rejected the correspondence theory of truth, i.e., the traditional realistic conception of the world’s mind-independence. In this paper, I argue that these three philosophical perspectives form an uneasy triangle, for while it is possible to coherently defend each of them separately or two of them combined, holding all three leads to incoherence. (...) Hence, the only option is to reject one of them in a way that is both compatible with Kuhnian historiography and philosophically fruitful. My purpose in this paper is not exegetical. My ambition is to sketch a coherent philosophical framework which does justice to Kuhn’s historiographical model for scientific change and avoids the philosophical costs of relativism and anti-naturalism. In particular, I argue in favor of the following interconnected positions: (1) Given the role of anomalies in Kuhn’s historiographical model, the latter satisfies the two fundamental conditions for acknowledging the mind-independence of the world: the ‘irreducibility condition’ and the ‘objectivity condition’, (2) Kuhn’s rejection of the notion of an ‘Archimedean platform’ does not entail that the truth-value of beliefs doesn’t play a role in the explanation of their change, (3) Adopting scientific realism is the only way to defend the autonomy of scientific rationality within a naturalistic philosophical framework. However, adopting realism leads to a liberal rather than an eliminative version of naturalism. (shrink)

One of the elements of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions not only confused his readers but even Kuhn himself, namely, his talk about world change. In my earlier work, I have tackled the question of Kuhn’s metaphysics from a viewpoint that was informed by Kant’s critical theoretical philosophy. Useful as this may be, in this chapter I will try a different approach. I will focus on the fact that Kuhn acted mainly as a reflective historian when he wrote Structure. Thus, (...) he reflected on what sort of image of science the appropriately pursued historiography of science would present to him. In this chapter, I try to reconstruct the experiences of the historian of science, who is somehow driven to talk about world change as something correlated with scientific revolutions, and want to find out whether Kuhn’s world change talk can be made plausible. (shrink)

In this chapter we focus on Rorty’s core commitments with respect to language, and consider their role in Rorty’s stormy relations to mainstream analytic philosophy. Further, we bring out key features of Rorty’s position by tracing his engagement with WittgensteinWittgenstein, SellarsSellars, QuineQuine, DavidsonDavidson, and KuhnKuhn.

El cambio ontológico tras una revolución científica, la inquietante consecuencia de la teoría de la inconmensurabilidad de Kuhn sigue cobrando interés, desde la última década del siglo anterior la interpretación no-realista de HoyningenHuene y Oberheim ha representado un desafío para el realismo científico de Sankey, quien postula la co-referencia como posibilidad para traslape de términos intraducibles por inconmensurabilidad semántica. Argumentos en discusión sobre comparabilidad, mundo y traslape referencial parecen incompatibles entre ambos enfoques (puntos 1, 2); la interpretación kantiana de HoyningenHuene (...) de mundo fenoménico y mundo en sí mismo, acerca del mundo que cambia y mundo que no cambia por las revoluciones científicas, es inaceptable para Sankey (punto 2.1); postulo una analogía entre categorías y espacio externo de Kant con léxico y mundo en sí mismo en Kuhn, respectivamente (punto 3). (shrink)

In the paper I will, first, address certain apparent tensions in relation to Kuhn’s legacy in the history of science. Kuhn was a historian before he became a philosopher of science. He had done and published historical work, he only had history graduate students, he imbued philosophy of science with historical considerations. And, yet, his widely acknowledged influence on the history of science came mostly through his philosophical work which is, nevertheless, brushed off by historians of science as making dated (...) overarching and generalizing claims when their own attention has been increasingly focusing on the local and the particular. Secondly, I will discuss how Kuhn used history, the facts of the past, in his historical philosophy of science and will present a reading that takes his model of science as a Wittgensteinian object of comparison. Lastly, I will argue that Kuhn’s philosophical work impacted developments in the historiography of science and the corresponding discipline. (shrink)

In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn expounded his main beliefs on the nature of science in a way that seemed for him, at least for a while, definitive. Yet, his writings before and after Structure, a significant part of them unpublished, do not support the claim that Structure exhausted those aspects of science and its development Kuhn had planned to entertain. Philosophical issues of scientific development attracted his attention a decade before a first draft of Structure was finished and (...) around 8 years before he first started to write the first chapter. As a Harvard junior fellow, Kuhn explored those issues for the first time. Similarly, when he considered that his historiographical work on the archival and oral sources of quantum mechanics and on the history of the old quantum theory had been finished, he turned his attention again to philosophical aspects of scientific development from a new point of view. In this chapter, I shall try to show that the background to that new point of view was as old as his oldest texts on philosophy of science. That shall be one of my main goals in this paper. (shrink)

In his paper, “Kuhn, Coherentism and Perception,” Howard Sankey shows that Kuhn’s epistemology does not fit squarely in the coherentist framework, though some aspects of his theory are akin to that position. Sankey examines and then criticizes a previous work by Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen that argues that Kuhn’s work fits in well with a coherentist approach and with a realistic position in which the correspondence theory of truth is still defensible. I will not examine Kuukkanen’s argument here. I will only comment (...) on Sankey’s qualifications on Kuhn’s alleged coherentism. In the first section I shall add some more details to Kuhn’s relation to the concept of “the given” that reinforce Sankey’s doubts concerning the thesis that the author of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions fits in with a coherentist account of scientific knowledge—though I also agree with Sankey (and Kuukannen) that a study of coherentist ingredients in Kuhn’s epistemology would bring insight. Even so, labeling Kuhn’s epistemological views as either foundationalist or coherentist goes beyond his original point of view. I shall devote the second section of this commentary to argue in favor of this thesis on the basis of an unpublished lecture by Kuhn in which he discusses his convictions in the theory of knowledge—which agree with his attack to convergent views of scientific progress —and their connection to Ludwig Wittgenstein’s On Certainty. (shrink)

In this paper I examine Thomas Kuhn’s epistolary and in-person exchanges with Richard Rorty, and their significance to the former’s work on the nature of scientific development during the years 1976–1986. Accordingly, it corresponds to a significant evolution of Kuhn’s thought from the position expounded earlier in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. These letters show how Kuhn’s philosophy of science evolved towards a greater emphasis on a key aspect of his former work—the nature of ‘the essential tension’—and that his more (...) linguistically-oriented perspective in these latter years has that emphasis as its goal—at least as a significant part. (shrink)

This paper examines ‘The Natures of Conceptual Change’, the Notre Dame lectures given by Kuhn in 1980. In particular, I aim to examine the content of these lectures which was not published before. This exegetical task will shed light on the sources of the notion of taxonomy used in these lectures for the first time with the explicit philosophical purposes. It also will shed new light on Kuhn's position regarding the causal theory of reference. Reviewing these archival materials paves the (...) way for intertextual comparisons, as Kuhn included part of these lectures in the texts published later and in the book Plurality of Worlds: an Evolutionary Theory of Scientific Development. In recent years, the publication of Kuhn's archival material and the research on these texts increased in quantity and quality. Faced with this encouraging landscape, a comparative examination of the different unpublished texts is crucial to refining both our research tools on Kuhn's intellectual biography and the philosophical work inspired by his proposal. (shrink)

This paper explores Thomas Kuhn’s intellectual history by examining sources that have been understudied so far: the Lowell Lectures of 1951 (The Quest for Physical Theory) and the hitherto unpublished Notre Dame Lectures of 1980. The analysis of these texts aims to reconstruct Kuhn’s development of a semantics that can account for scientific progress. This analysis will show that the alleged “linguistic turn” attributed to the author is actually a renewed interest in problems that existed well before publishing The Structure (...) of Scientific Revolutions. (shrink)

Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996) is widely considered as one of the most important philosophers of science of the 20th century, while his The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) is regarded as one of the most influential works in the philosophy ofscience. At the same time, however, his place within philosophy of science remains ambiguous. On the one hand, despite the popularity of SSR, there is no proper ‘Kuhnian school of thought’ in HPS. On the other hand, the interest towards Kuhn does (...) not seem to fade away and the number of publications about his work does not seem to decrease. We suggest that there are at least three different ways to go ‘beyond SSR’: (i) by scrutinising the development of Kuhn’s thought, from his pre- to his post-SSR writings; (ii) by contextualising Kuhn in the philosophical milieu of his time, thus interpreting his view as emerging from the intellectual exchanges he had with contemporary philosophers; (iii) by reinterpreting and developing some of his most known ideas, in ways that perhaps Kuhn himself was not able to contemplate. (shrink)

Bu çalışmanın amacı Thomas Kuhn’un bilimsel ilerleme kavrayışının tarihsel süreç içerisinde nasıl değişip ve dönüştüğünü ortaya koymaktır. Kuhn’un 1962 yılında yayınladığı Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısı adlı eser, bilim camiasında büyük bir etki yaratır. Hatta bazı çevreler, bu eserle birlikte pozitivist ve realist bilim anlayışlarının tamamen ortadan kalktığını yerine yepyeni bir bilim tasarımının geçtiğini ilan ederler. Kuhn’un bu eserinde ileri sürdüğü en etkili iddialardan birisi de geleneksel birikimsel ilerleme anlayışını reddetmesi, yerine devrimsel ilerlemeyi öne sürmesiydi. Fakat Kuhn süreç içerisinde kendisine yöneltilen eleştirileri (...) bertaraf etmek için görüşlerinde birtakım değişikliğe gider. Kuhn bu değişiklikler sonucunda da ilk etapta savunduğu bilimsel ilerleme anlayışından sapar. Neticede, Kuhn’un 1980 sonrası eserleri dikkate alındığında, onun Bilimsel Devrimlerin Yapısında ileri sürdüğü devrimsel ilerleme anlayışından uzaklaşıp, Darwinci anlamda evrimsel ilerlemeye yaklaştığı görülmüştür. Ayrıca Kuhn’un bu revizyonlarının sonucunda ilk etapta radikal bir şekilde eleştirdiği pozitivist ve realist bilim anlayışlarına belirli bir düzeyde geri dönüş yaptığı da söylenebilir. (shrink)

The paper takes off from the suggestion of Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen that Kuhn’s account of science may be understood in coherentist terms. There are coherentist themes in Kuhn’s philosophy of science. But one crucial element is lacking. Kuhn does not deny the existence of basic beliefs which have a non-doxastic source of justification. Nor does he assert that epistemic justification only derives from inferential relationships between non-basic beliefs. Despite this, the coherentist interpretation is promising and I develop it further in this (...) paper. I raise the question of whether Kuhn’s account of science can deal with the input objection to coherentism. I argue that the role played by problems in Kuhn’s theory of science ensures that there is input from the external world into scientists’ belief-systems. I follow Hoyningen-Huene in pointing to the causal role played by the external world in determining perceptual states. I next turn to the question of whether Kuhn’s rejection of foundationalism implies coherentism. I argue that Kuhn’s rejection of the one-to-one relation between object and experience is compatible with a foundationalist account of justification. Nor does Kuhn’s rejection of the given entail the same coherentist implications as Sellars’ critique of the myth of the given. (shrink)

In the latter half of the twentieth century, foundationalist approaches to epistemology and philosophy of science were widely rejected in favour of holist and coherentist approaches. Kuhn may be regarded as a contributor to this anti-foundationalist tendency. In this paper, I wish to consider the extent to which Kuhn’s epistemological thinking was coherentist in nature. This is a task that has already begun in the work of Jouni-Matti Kuukkanen. However, I wish to go beyond Kuukkanen by raising a number of (...) questions that he does not address. First, I present Kuukkanen’s coherentist interpretation of Kuhn. In the next section, I argue that the interpretation fails to show that Kuhn rejects non-doxastic justification in favour of coherence relations among beliefs. In the fourth section, I present a standard objection to coherentism that any adequate formulation of the doctrine must confront, the “input objection”. I then frame the objection in terms of Kuhn’s model. In the fifth section, I argue that Kuhn’s account of science is able to satisfactorily deal with the input objection. In the sixth section, I explore the relationship between Kuhn’s treatment of perception and the anti-foundationalist tendency that contributed to the rise of coherentism. (shrink)

A comparative analysis of the different notions of ‘ways of thinking’ introduced by philosophers. A guiding thread running through historical epistemology in an attempt to unify the researches of its authors. A comprehensive study of Ian Hacking’s ‘project of styles of reasoning’ and its implications for the relativism.

Thomas Kuhn's philosophy brought a series of important ways of interpreting scientific practice, where history came to be understood as a significant part of this dynamic. In his 1962 “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, Kuhn provided us with some important concepts such as paradigm, normal science, anomalies and extraordinary science. From then on, science was no longer seen only as a logical structure related to discovery – but it was suggested that scientific changes occurred due to an increase in unresolved (...) problems that were sometimes ignored; contrary to what a science standardized by Popper's falsificationism could propose. Science in its normal period would be extremely traditionalist, remaining faithful to its paradigm and ignoring a series of problems – the paradigm being, among various ways of describing such a term, as a matrix of models. After many ignored and unresolved problems, a crisis can set in and from this process new paradigms can emerge: note that this dynamic can be related to a historical process within science. (shrink)

O artigo propõe como tema aproximar a ontologia fundamental de Martin Heidegger e a epistemologia de Thomas Kuhn, a partir do vínculo entre ciência e técnica moderna. Para conduzir nosso estudo, propomos a seguinte pergunta norteadora: qual o vínculo originário entre as revoluções paradigmáticas empreendidas pela ciência contemporânea e a essência da técnica moderna? O objetivo deste artigo, neste sentido, consiste em determinar como o cientista, ao se comprometer exclusivamente com a resolução de quebra-cabeças (ou enigmas), mantém inquestionados os pressupostos (...) ontológicos que oferecem condição de possibilidade para a realização da ciência. Partindo da premissa estabelecida por Gianni Vattimo de que a noção de paradigma, tal como conceituada por Kuhn, pode ser compreendida como uma forma de desvelamento, determinaremos o vínculo originário entre as realizações contemporâneas da ciência e a essência da técnica moderna. Por conseguinte, demonstraremos como a natureza, conforme ajustada aos paradigmas de pesquisa científicos, se revela como disponibilidade para a exploração técnico-científica. (shrink)

Errol Morris has claimed that Kuhn threw an ashtray at him during a dispute about some matter in the history of science. Morris also claims that Kuhn threw him out of the graduate program at Princeton for disagreeing with him. I argue that Morris’ attack on Kuhn contains some degree of hyperbole. Further, I present evidence that shows that Morris is mistaken about key events during this period. In fact, Kuhn was supportive of Morris in his pursuit of a career (...) in the history of science. (shrink)