The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (original 1962; edition 1996)

Kuhn’s thesis is that scientific progress does not proceed cumulatively, as most people have believed. Instead, he says that it oscillates between stable periods of normal science, during which scientists elaborate and extend a single dominant paradigm, and revolutionary breaks, when an existing paradigm is abandoned in favor of a new one. Kuhn popularized the term "paradigm" -- the question for historians is does his theory apply to historical thinking too? ( )

A really interesting book, and one that's become ingrained so much that you feel like you're not learning too much at first.

Science is not a linear ordered means of progress, within neat and orderly steps as we are taught in grade school. There is the slow steady expansion and exploration of knowledge within a specific ordered system, or paradigm. Many scientists work within this paradigm, as 'recieved beliefs', and unconsciously work to forward these beliefs, although they may claim to work to explore or expand. But eventually, some new discovery or phenomenon overturns the whole system violently, and there is a new era of discovery. Hence the 'paradigm shift'.

The old and new systems are not always instantaneously compatible, and some do not move instantly towards the new. This is the segment that comes most in doubt - people can change their minds, after all! This shift might be like learning a new language, and thinking solely within this new system.

Again, a lot of this is basic stuff to people in hard science today. But it's really interesting to think about it, and apply the methods of science to other fields. It's a bit of a gristly read, but the ideas, as always, are what count. ( )

I had a hard time with Kuhn's way of talking at first but once that changed the reading wasn't too hard to get through. There is just a lot of jargon. The book helped a lot in history and theory class but the idea of paradigm shifts and scientific revolutions was prevalent in that class. It's prevalent in any science I think. There are always going to be paradigm shifts. I feel as if I will want to reread this book sometime in the future, perhaps for graduate school. It's certainly something to always keep in mind. If you are in any scientific field I recommend this book. ( )

A landmark in intellectual history ( )

I first heard the term "paradigm shift" and was detailed on the concept of the scientific revolution my freshman year of high school in "World Cultures" class.  The idea has since lurked in my mind-- much as it has in culture, I think.  But it took twelve years and a philosophy of science seminar to get around to reading it.

Kuhn's work is immediately incredible.  Though it's probably not always right, it's not always right in the way that most big ideas are, because it's so big that there can't not be tons of little exceptions to what he says and how he says it. His model of science, as a series of paradigms that shift but don't necessarily become more truthful, just more useful, is immediately persuasive.  I especially liked what he said about the action of "normal science," the science that happens between paradigms.  Despite the fact that scientists know that major theories are overturned throughout history and will be overturned again, they all proceed as though science has been settled and do these small tiny experiments.

I also liked his concept of "paradigm vision" (I don't think he calls it this exactly, but I do), that scientists see the world through the lens of their paradigms, and indeed, often find it impossible to bridge the gap between paradigms because it affects the language they uses.  I thought of the Pluto-is-a-planet thing when reading this section; some people cannot believe that Pluto is not a planet because they see the world in such a way that the word "planet" means something that includes Pluto.  How could they possibly accept that it is not a planet?

Of course, Kuhn's ideas are more applicable to physics than other sciences, and rejecting the sciences they don't fit as "immature" is probably not the right solution, but that doesn't stop it from being interesting.  I am kinda disgruntled that Kuhn added an afterword in 1969 to deal with criticisms that had been lobbed at it, instead of actually integrating the criticisms into the main text.  But on the other hand, I'm glad that his response to that criticism can be safely contained in one chapter because the criticisms are all such nitpicky philosophy of science bullshit.