|
| The Structure of Scientific Revolutions | 
 enlarge | Author: Thomas S. Kuhn
Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
Discount Category: Book
Selling Price: $13.00
Buy Used: $7.19
Potential Savings: $5.81 (45%)
New (64) Used (112) from $7.19
Customer Ratings:  121 comments
Media: Paperback
Edition: 1
Number Of Items: 1
Pages: 226
Shipping Weight (pounds): 0.5
Dimensions (inch): 7.9 x 5.2 x 0.6
ISBN: 0226458083
Dewey Decimal Number: 501
EAN: 9780226458083
Publication Date: December 15, 1996
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Condition: Brand New, Perfect Condition, Please allow 4-14 business days for delivery. 100% Money Back Guarantee, Over 1,000,000 customers served.
|
| Customer Comments:
 An intellectual landmark November 27, 2007
It is easy to assume that everyone is familiar with Kuhn's work, but in the famously taped words of the late Richard Nixon, "That would be wrong!." THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS is a nodal point in modern understanding of how we know what we know and how science moves forward. This slim publication may be the most frequently referrenced book in my reading experience, outside of (perhaps) the Bible (which has been around somewhat longer and which makes far less sense). The gist of Kuhn's thesis is that Science pretends to progress through incremental additions to knowledge, carefully documented by hard working researchers, but it ain't so. He carefully demonstrates that science actually lurches forward when an individual stumbles on a paradigm-shifting revelation -- which most of the establishment denies vehemently until it is dragged kicking and shrieking into the new mode of thought. Though I don't own a copy, and haven't read it since a friend handed it to me in 1971 it remains vivid. I still inwardly thank Woody for that gift whenever I see Kuhn mentioned. Maybe everyone HAS read it. If so, never mind.
Rite of passage for doctoral sudents November 1, 2007
2 out of 4 found this comment useful.
Part of the doctoral program experience is overcoming the obstacles set forth by detached and self-important professors. Standard practice for initiating potential intellectuals into the society of self-titled intellectuals is a gauntlet of trials and tribulations contrived by the ivory tower hegemony. I would guess that this book is rarely self-selected by the reader. More likely, most readers have found the title on the required reading list of their syllabus.
This book is a challenge to read for a casual scientist, but does follow a pattern. In particular, there seems to be "a point" on each page, with the reminder of the narrative being a digression providing anecdotal evidence of scientific breakthrough that illustrates his "point." There are several strong outlines available on the internet that can facilitate the deciphering of the pattern. I think you would have to be a pretty hardcore science junkie on par of a jeopardy champion to get the full enjoyment of reading each digression. However, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is truly a benchmark of how we view science (agree or disagree) and is required reading for any serious scholar.
The Kuhnian notion of "normal science" consists of the creation of a dominant paradigm which subsequently governs all inquiry. Hegemony is created where ongoing research either fits within the "knowledge base" or the researcher may be ostracized. In this manner, scientific revolutions occur in a linear fashion, where one paradigm is "discovered," entrenched, then de-constructed, subsequently making room for the next paradigm.
Obviously, in the post-modern age, we may no longer think of scientific revolutions as occurring as a succession of periods of normal science (theoretical monism). Recent researchers such as a theoretical pluralism approach where science should be comprised of competing research paradigms. In other words, the more competition, the better the progress. What makes the third edition so interesting is the epilogue written recently (1996). The original edition as published in 1962, so the epilogue is his opportunity to respond to what critics have said about his work over the past 30 years.
 The Structure of Scientific Revolutions September 19, 2007
1 out of 4 found this comment useful.
Frankly I found this book difficult to understand. It isn't hard to grasp the concept of the book, but forget trying to retain anything specific.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions August 6, 2007
0 out of 8 found this comment useful.
I haven't read this book, so do not review the text, but say only that I bought it for a teacher in Meghalaya, India who is taking post-graduate studies and needs it for his own classes. He was extremely appreciative to receive this book and will use it to help him serve his community better.
 The Paradigm of Paradigms July 22, 2007
5 out of 6 found this comment useful.
When a book has so many enthusiastic supporters and detractors, it's surely a classic. Kuhn delivered one of the all-time landmarks of the philosophy of science, with the potential to truly capture the interest of the informed layperson. However, it's far from foolproof, as if any work of philosophy could deliver ALL the answers. You can see many of the other reviews here for very specific critiques from the hardcore philosophy crowd. For the interested and educated general reader, Kuhn supplies an inherently fascinating historical focus on the way science has worked over the eons, and any reader could enjoy his highly plausible connections between the behavior of scientists and the structure of revolutions. He also gets credit for defining the term "paradigm" - which was once much more useful than today's trendy buzzword lovers could imagine.
However, I tend to agree with some of the biggest philosophical critiques of Kuhn's theory, particularly the fact that he was able to come up with very few examples of supposed scientific revolutions. Meanwhile, Kuhn's theory is completely at odds with the vast majority of scientific progress that is not necessarily "revolutionary." One could plausibly condemn Kuhn for coming up with his theory first, finding historical episodes that could be used as proof, and ignoring historical evidence that does not fit the theory. This is hardly the method followed by the groundbreaking scientists lauded by Kuhn. Also, while nobody should expect a work of philosophy to be generally accessible, Kuhn badly damages his interesting ideas with wooden prose that is nearly impenetrable, with entire sentences bordering on incomprehensibility. For example, "those questions will seem ever more urgent if we now note one respect in which the terms used so far may be misleading." In his introduction, Kuhn succeeds in obfuscating his major philosophical question to the point of absurdity, in asking "how could history of science fail to be a source of phenomena to which theories about knowledge may legitimately be asked to apply?" Kuhn immediately alienates many potentially fascinated general readers and sets himself up for severe criticism from the small body of professional philosophers who think that this kind of language is more insightful than the straight talk delivered by revolutionary scientists. [~doomsdayer520~]
|
|
|
|  | |