Thomas Kuhn

Thomas Kuhn was out to change our understanding of the sciences—that is, of the activities that have enabled our species, for better or worse, to dominate the planet. He succeeded.

Physics and its threat were on everyone’s mind.

Thus The Structure of Scientific Revolutions may be—I do not say is—more relevant to a past epoch in the history of science than it is to the sciences as they are practiced today.

Kuhn thought not only that there are scientific revolutions but also that they have a structure. He laid out this structure with great care, attaching a useful name to each node in the structure.

That is the structure of scientific revolutions: normal science with a paradigm and a dedication to solving puzzles; followed by serious anomalies, which lead to a crisis; and finally resolution of the crisis by a new paradigm.

This is the idea that, in the course of a revolution and paradigm shift, the new ideas and assertions cannot be strictly compared to the old ones. Even if the same words are in use, their very meaning has changed. That in turn led to the idea that a new theory was not chosen to replace an old one, because it was true but more because of a change in world view (§X).

The book ends with the disconcerting thought that progress in science is not a simple line leading to the truth. It is more progress away from less adequate conceptions of, and interactions with, the world (§XIII).

In the preface to the second edition (1787), he speaks in almost purple prose of two revolutionary events.10 One was the transition in mathematical practice in which techniques familiar in Babylonia and Egypt were transformed in Greece to proofs from postulates. The second was the emergence of the experimental method and the laboratory, a series of events that he identified as beginning with Galileo. He repeats the word revolution several times in just two long paragraphs.

A final observation: current usage of the word revolution goes far beyond what Kuhn had in mind. This is not a criticism either of Kuhn or of the general public. It does mean that one should read Kuhn attentively and pay attention to what he actually says. Nowadays revolution is pretty much a praise word. Every new refrigerator, every daring new movie, is announced as revolutionary. It is hard to remember that the word was once used sparingly.

In the American media (almost forgetful of the American Revolution) the word conveyed more loathing than praise, because revolutionary meant ‘commie.’ I regret the recent debasing of revolution to mere hype, but it is a fact that makes the comprehension of Kuhn a little more difficult.