|
| 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 (65) 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:
A Worthwhile Effort November 14, 2006
3 out of 4 found this comment useful.
*I am not Tom Kozikowski -- I am a student in his high school Physics II class, and I write this with his permission*
I'm recommending The Structure of Scientific Revolution not because its a light read, but because it presents ideas that the average person will not encounter during their educational experience. Kuhn provides a perspective on the scientific world that few people ever see.
It becomes obvious that he knows a great deal about science and the history of science, but he approaches it with an outsider's perspective. As he notes in the book, perspective is a major factor in how one understands a topic, and thus he is able to understand the progress of the scientific community differently than a member of the field would. He points out that science is unique from other fields in the way that it progresses. The depth at which he analyzes the progression of scientific revolutions is unmatched by other contemporary scientific texts.
I will make a few precautionary notes about reading the novel. Kuhn's ideas are complex, and despite his efforts to communicate them effectively, are often difficult to express. One has to devote time to understand his ideas, since they are usually entirely new to the reader. Also, keep in mind that Kuhn is not diluting his ideas at all, so some readers will quickly become lost in his vocabulary and structure.
Overall, though the book is a difficult read, it is still worth it to be exposed to the ideas and concepts that Kuhn presents. Nowhere else can one see such a unique perspective on the field of science.
A Students View on the Complex Work November 14, 2006
3 out of 4 found this comment useful.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: A High School Students View on the Complex Work
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn is by no means a rhetoric masterpiece of the 21st century. Thomas S. Kuhn's syntax would oftentimes make an English professor cringe. His choppy sentences continually make the book difficult to read. Numerous paragraphs must be read and reread numerous times just to decipher the text. Then it must be read yet again just to obtain Kuhn's point. After reading the same paragraph that many times the reader is exhausted and unmotivated to move on with the novel. Furthermore, the content may seem illogically structured. Certain chapters seem to be repetitive and redundant. The author will use the same case numerous times to support an objective of his, for example the phlogiston model.
Contrary to the above points, if one can decipher the vocabulary, the underlying messages Kuhn illustrates are of great insight. He delves into the realm of where science came from and how we got to where we are today. A concept most scientists are ignorant of. Examining the intricate details of the philosophy of science and paradigm changes Kuhn is able to enlighten the reader to a state of elucidation
After concluding The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the reader feel's overwhelmed. The information Kuhn presents is of great complexity, and quantity. However, once sifted through thoroughly the reader has learnt a lot. First, the reader now understands the basis of science, where, when, and how are all questions addressed by Kuhn throughout the novel. As a student of science, I was unaware of how science progressed to where it is today. I merely learn the concepts, and move on. I generally accept them and do not challenge them. After reading the novel, I now understand the importance of a paradigm change and the importance of those who challenge it. Overall, Kuhn's book gave me, the reader, a sense of why I love the subject of science so much.
Overall, the concepts and information Kuhn presents are well worth the battle of simply reading the novel. The novel should be read with purpose and discipline to obtain Kuhn's entire purpose.
"History, if viewed as a repository for more than anecdote or chronology, could produce a decisive transformation in the image of science by which we are now possessed"
 Kuhn's rights and wrongs September 30, 2006
6 out of 9 found this comment useful.
Kuhn, like Popper before him, noticed a very important truth but failed to see it clearly and mixed it with a terribly harmful mistake. Before explaining that truth and that mistake, I would like to clarify the meaning of the term paradigm which Kuhn used in presenting his ideas. As he later acknowledged, he gave two different definitions of this term: (a) a paradigm is a successful model that is imitated to acquire new scientific knowledge, and (b) a paradigm is made up of all accepted knowledge and the methods and means of acquiring new knowledge. These two definitions become one if we assume that the concept "model" covers all accepted knowledge and the methods and means of acquiring new knowledge. The use of terms that are not clearly defined facilitates making mistakes.
The truth noticed by Kuhn is that no knowledge can be proven to be valid in a general way using deductive logic, experimentation and/or observation, or any other method. The reason for this is that all empirical testing of knowledge can be done only on a limited number of singular phenomena. This also means that no general knowledge can be produced through deductive logic, experimentation and/or observation, or any other method. General knowledge is produced by "generalizing through induction," in Newton's words, what is learned from a limited number of singular phenomena through deduction from the related empirical data. But Kuhn ignores where induction is used in scientific work, as he admits when he says, "somewhere in this maze lies the problem of induction." Those who read Kuhn can profit from learning that general knowledge cannot be produced or tested using deductive logic, experimentation and/or observation, or any other method.
The mistake made by Kuhn is that he presents the truth that he noticed, i.e., the nonexistence of a method of general validation of knowledge, as if it were related only to theoretical knowledge, or theories. He often uses the terms theory and paradigm interchangeably, for example when he talks about "paradigm shift" and choosing between rival theories. In reality, empirical knowledge is just as impossible to validate in a general way as theoretical knowledge is, the reason being the same in the two cases. Kuhn's mistake on this point makes theoretical knowledge look less reliable than experimental knowledge. In experimental work, the validation of a hypothesized knowledge is done by deducing it from the data, whereas in theoretical work, validation is done by deducing from data not the theory that is being tested but some consequences deduced from it. More generally, the test of a theory is its usefulness in explaining, predicting, and controlling the facts in a certain area of reality. It is used where it serves to do these things. When phenomena that apparently belong to the same area of reality but do not fit the existing theory are discovered, a more general theory or a new theory that accomodates the newly discovered phenomena is constructed. I explained and exemplified these processes in detail in my books.
Those who read Kuhn should avoid sharing his mistake, which closed some disciplines of science, notably psychology, to the construction and use of theories. A survey showed Kuhn as the author most frequently quoted by psychologists. Knowledge supplied by a theory in its field of validity is as sure as empirical knowledge, and in this sense, skeptics can say, "it is only scientific knowledge" just as they say, "it is only a theory." A theory is derived, not deduced, from empirical knowledge but transcends empirical knowledge. Psychologists need to learn how this is done by physicists if they want to make psychology a mature science with theories instead of "schools" like philosophy and the arts.
Kuhn also sees no difference between science and philosophy, evidently because he ignores the process of the validation of knowledge. Plato said that philosophy was only about possibilities. In opposition to this, science produces knowledge that is tested in relation to some singular phenomena and is then generalized through induction and accepted as generally valid in a certain area of reality.
Kuhn's solution to the problem of how to choose between rival theories is that Europeans have a yet non-understood ability to choose the right theories. This is an Aristotelian tautology befitting a philosopher ignorant of the methods of science. Feyerabend remarked that Kuhn failed to explain the mission of science.
 good read August 23, 2006
2 out of 6 found this comment useful.
One of its kind in its own subject area. Kuhn writes with clarity and passion to develop a plausible thesis about scientific discovery and how it comes about
Comments as the driver of a new scientific revolution in a sub-field of physics June 6, 2006
4 out of 8 found this comment useful.
Thomas Kuhn's book has provided comfort for me personally. There is no need to go into the details of his arguments. For example, whether the old generation has to die before paradigm shift can take place is not the issue. The issue is whether scientists resist anything new that cannot be fitted into the existing paradigm. Whether it took ten years or a lifetime for people to accept the theory of the origin of ulcers is irrelevant. I am disagreeing with the review by Peter Hobson (Groton, CT USA), 12/25/2005]. What's important is the initial reaction of the community to new ideas. I have evidence to support the observations and analysis by T. Kuhn.
Revolutionary ideas and theories gain faster acceptance if the new paradigm can quickly lead to economical and social benefits. I believe this is why the story of ulcers so quickly received the recognition of Nobel Prize in Medicine. If the idea leads to more effective treatment, who could hold up its consequences? Even the opponent would embrace it immediately because he would not want to suffer from ulcers.
The problem is that sometime the benefit of making a paradigm shift is not immediately obvious. The defendant of the old paradigm simply resists changes to protect his reputation that is merely built on perfecting the old paradigm.
It is difficult for most to appreciate the point of view expressed in Kuhn's book because most readers are not involved in a process of scientific revolution. As someone solely responsible for a scientific revolution occurring in a sub-branch of physics, I can verify based on my experience, i.e., on the reaction to our work that Kuhn is right on the money. Let me quote three remarks by the member of the community, first on my published scientific article, second on a rejected manuscript, and the third on my declined proposal to the National Science Foundation:
"To say that the conclusions drawn by the submitted article are controversial is an understatement of Herculean proportion....While scientific advancement often requires the disproving of established thought, the authors of this work attempt to do so without sufficient proof. The material responses described in this article could be ascribed to other physical processes, including those that adhere to the traditional school of thought...The urgency to abandon conventional wisdom without sound basis is disturbing."
"The Comment by xxx (two of whom are xxx Medalists) makes a very strong case for dismissing the main results of xxx (the present reviewer). Unfortunately, the Reply makes ZERO valid counterpoints and consequently should not be published. If xxx (the present reviewer) want to admit their mistakes and explain how they fell into the trap of publishing erroneous results, this might be useful so that others do not make similar mistakes in the future."
"Overall, the PI needs to calm down considerably. In this proposal and his recent papers, the PI tries valiantly to sell his work as the single most important breakthrough in the history of science! In fact, both the proposed and recent work is reasonable, but the overselling done by the PI irritates people."
I hope that people like Mr. Peter Hobson would in the future interview some people involved in scientific revolutions before making comments that could be misleading.
It is very sad that the phenomena described by Thomas Kuhn are real. I have learned to be patient and more tolerant after reading the book.
I am also very intrigued by his definition of Science as well as his statements regarding textbooks that present science as absolute truth without offering any historical perspective and describing where it comes from and who is chiefly responsible for creating it. I hope to write about these issues at another time.
|
|
|
|  | |