Will I love The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

In this classic book, Kuhn introduces the idea of a "paradigm" and shows that real progress comes through paradigm shifts.

That hit me like a rock when I first read it. I love how in the second edition, Kuhn talks about the difficulties of deep change: "the problem is that the new paradigm is always worse than the old one." 

The new paradigm may be better in some way, but it is also sketchy, unformed, and it creates lots of new uncertainties. So, for somebody to shift to a new paradigm always requires a leap of faith!

A classic book on how scientific revolutions occur—how, over thousands of years, the world moved from thinking that the sun revolved around the earth to realizing that the earth in fact rotated around the sun.

Theologians and many others aggressively fought this idea, and some scientists struggled to devise fanciful explanations to try to fit the data. Yet Copernicus, Galileo, and a few others bravely pursued the truth, undergoing arrest, excommunication, and death, and ultimately won.

This book taught me how scientific truths can encounter stiff opposition and battles, but ultimately triumph.

This book, which went viral in the 1960s just when I was looking for an academic position as a philosopher of science, saved me professionally. Kuhn’s book upended the prevailing view, which I opposed, that the key to understanding how science works is exposing the logic of scientific reasoning.

His book makes a compelling case that the history of science decisively undermines the prevailing view. I admire how Kuhn here uses the history of science—from Galileo and Newton to Einstein and quantum theory—to expose the role that unproven assumptions play in formulating scientific theories and to… show more.

On the surface, this seems a dry treatise on the process of scientific change, but as you get into it, you encounter again and again the stories of hardheaded researchers convinced that the world explained by current theory just doesn’t make sense and shows how they were driven, often reluctantly, to make sense of things. Priestley’s and Lavoisier’s experiments are included with many others but always set within the framework of a discipline in a “crisis” that needs to be resolved.

The personal costs are not neglected–ridicule, isolation from the accepted “establishment,” sometimes far worse. Scientific progress is often portrayed… show more.

This is the book that changed my thinking about science—but I had to read it twice before I understood what was really going on. It’s not the revolutions that are radical, but ordinary science, which motivates scientists to undertake long, arduous, risky programs of experimentation or observation by providing a guarantee that they cannot possibly fail.

The guarantee comes in the form of the famous Kuhnian “paradigm,” which is a blueprint for doing scientific research that ordinary scientists are not permitted to question. But paradigms can fail, and so the guarantee that motivates scientists is a piece of fakery. Science,… show more.

This book also gives a vivid and dramatic account of the way science proceeds, but one that is strikingly different from that of Popper’s account. According to Kuhn,  much of science is what he calls “normal” science: a basic theory, or “paradigm,” is taken for granted, and scientists seek to increase its experimental range and accuracy. But then “anomalies” begin to accumulate; crisis sets in until a new paradigm is proposed, a revolution occurs, the old paradigm is defeated, and a new phase of normal science begins. 

I loved the drama Kuhn finds in this procedure of normal and revolutionary… show more.

This book was a milestone in the analysis of scientific thinking and progress. Rather than following the traditional approach of focusing almost entirely on the rationality and logic of scientific advance–which was taken to be continuous in nature–Kuhn stressed the more discontinuous breaks that divided successive changes in what he described as successive “paradigm-shifts” of scientific interpretation–that is, the “revolutions” that transformed its focus and fundamental concepts. These were likened to the “gestalt shifts” (discussed by Hanson) associated with fundamentally ambiguous visual perceptions. Successive scientific paradigms, Kuhn argued, were incommensurable with one another.

This interpretation sparked somewhat of an uproar.… show more.

In 1962, Thomas Kuhn upended the idea of scientific progress by suggesting that scientific theories change basically like fads. I find this book riveting, with a mix of colorful descriptions of science’s history and bold claims.

The book has been so influential that “paradigm shift”—its central idea that basic features of how we see the world change when scientific theories change—has been adopted to refer to any time our ideas change radically. 

When I was a biomedical science graduate student, this book was on my shelf for a couple of years before I read it. I had pulled it out of a classmate’s trash bag when I was helping him move. Later, when I became distressed because my research findings were dismissed as “controversial,” a postdoctoral fellow in my lab told me that what I experienced was actually quite normal for novel scientific findings and I should read this book.

I did, and it changed forever my understanding of science and how scientists often resist accepting from others the very thing they… show more.

If you’ve ever wondered where all this talk of “paradigms” and “paradigm shifts” comes from, this book is the answer. A paradigm, according to Kuhn, is a set of theories and beliefs that guide scientific research by telling us what there is to know and how we can come to know it.

When a paradigm changes, a paradigm shift occurs. Some purveyors of the paranormal claim that their view represents a paradigm shift in our thinking. Kuhn’s book will help you assess whether that is indeed the case.