The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [pdf]

https://www.lri.fr/~mbl/Stanford/CS477/papers/Kuhn-SSR-2ndEd.pdf

by andsoitis • 3 years ago

90 45 3 years ago

"Scientific knowledge, like language, is intrinsically the common property of a group or else nothing at all. To understand it we shall need to know the special characteristics of the groups that create and use it."

I really don't know about this - the divisions that humans have created in their study of science are pretty artificial, i.e. physics/chemistry/biology, and seem to have more to do with academic politics and funding opportunities than the natural world itself. Nature doesn't care about such divisions, not in the least.

Mathematics is something of a special case, in that its results (and motivations) are as relevant to the world of art as they are to the world of science.

Kinrany• 3 years ago

Where's the contradiction?

beeneuf• 3 years ago

I'm having trouble understanding this comment. You seem to be grasping at one of the central points the author is raising, but you've phrased your comment as if what you've said is in opposition. Nature doesn't care about divisions, but our ways of communicating and sharing scientific knowledge are shaped by them - often to our detriment.

photochemsyn2• 3 years ago

I suppose the issue is that the text could have been named 'The Structure of Academic Revolutions' which might be closer to its intent and meaning?

Nevertheless the natural world, the object of scientific study, should remain the focus of attention, and the fundamental approaches - observation, experiment, theoretical construction - haven't really changed at all since the concept was invented.

analog31• 3 years ago

There must be some widespread realization of this problem, because "interdisciplinary" is a common buzzword in grant applications.

canjobear2• 3 years ago

You can absolutely learn a language and say a lot about it without knowing about the “special characteristics” of people who speak/spoke it.

Like, do you need to know anything about Roman culture to understand Latin grammar? No.

Swizec2• 3 years ago

do you need to know anything about Roman culture to understand Latin grammar? No.

But you do need to be fluent in Roman culture to understand Latin jokes, puns, similes, metaphors, and all the other things that go into meaning.

For a more modern example: Observe how British English can turn almost any noun into an insult in much the same way that this just doesn't work in American. Or how a Californian can say "this is not my favorite" and we all know they mean "this is awful". Or how Australians can use "you c*nts" as a term of endearment, but Americans cannot. Meanwhile Americans can use motherf*cker as both a term of endearment and an insult depending on situation.

And who could forget the subtle difference between "You are shit" and "You are the shit". Where does that show up in grammar?

edit: oh here’s a good one! The phrase “I love you” changes meaning when you say it to family, friends, coworkers, strangers, performers on stage, etc. Some languages even use different words for those meanings, but they all translate to “love” In English.

You absolutely cannot understand the full meaning of language without understanding the speaker’s context.

gattis2• 3 years ago

I remember in 2000 when journalists asked George W Bush and Al Gore what their favorite books were. Bush said his was The Bible. Al Gore said his was The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn. Probably could have called the election right then.

danielrpa• 3 years ago

Yes, and irrespective of our opinions on each book... Reading the Bible lets you connect in some form with the majority of your electorate, while reading Kuhn does not.

chrisbrandow• 3 years ago

Though this argument is undercut somewhat by Bush not actually winning a majority of the electorate. ;-)

esafak• 3 years ago

He must have known that, so props to him for giving an honest answer.

comicjk• 3 years ago

They didn't ask what books both men had read - I suspect Gore has read at least a large chunk of the Bible (he still describes himself as a Baptist to this day). It's just not his favorite book.

wutangson12• 3 years ago

Right. Because Gore told Oprah that his favorite book was 'The Red and The Black", making him appear like a typical waffling politician?

gattis2• 3 years ago

Well, I imagine everyone's favorite book changed many times over the course of their lives. Especially if you are well read.

nonethewiser7• 3 years ago

Fortunately the winner is determined by votes

pogden• 3 years ago

Unfortunately not who gets the most, though.

clbrmbr• 3 years ago

Great book. Influenced my thinking, but I didn’t fully grasp it in uni. On the REREAD list.

freerangebat• 3 years ago

Is the book in public domain now?

malodyets• 3 years ago

Rules here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain_in_the_United_...

Extended copyright harms the public domain, but the only realistic solution is for authors or publishers to believe in the common good more than their own profits. That does happen: Wikipedia for example is licensed under CC-BY-SA. But then you have Jimmy Wales pleading for donations regularly. Authors and publishers depend on copyright for well deserved income. In the US the balance of interests has swung so far away from the common good toward the author’s and publisher’s interests that for example interesting parody literature like The Wind Done Gone (a parody of Gone with the Wind having the same characters) are suppressed.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the best books I ever read.

jknoepfler• 3 years ago

One of my favorite ideas in Structure is Kuhn's observation that contradictory evidence seldom suffices to overturn a scientific theory. Contradictory evidence is the norm. What's required to overturn a scientific theory is both contradictory evidence and a better theory - and even then adoption is often grudging and uneven.

I've found that idea to be very valuable when navigating disagreements at work (and in life generally). Refutation is seldom constructive in isolation - you also need to bring a constructive alternative if you want to keep things moving forward.

I guess that sounds like common sense, but I'm surprised by how often people cleave to exclusively negative argumentation (particularly in political discussions).

andsoitis• 3 years ago

Couldn’t agree more. Dissent alone is usually not helpful, you should also want to collaborate on solutions. Be solution-oriented.

ggm2• 3 years ago

This is precisely where the antiVax mob failed: they simply wanted to deny the science behind the epidemiology to refuse to vaccinate, and they had no alternate theory beyond lizard-people.

Most of the "but there is no good evidence" arguing is not actually arguing in good faith.

AGW isn't much different. People leap on 0.1C differences and say AHA fail without contextualising it and then argue anyone who contextualising is "lying" or "altering the data"

its a bizarre reductionism, based on autodidact understanding of science. "Because I believe this is the scientific method all the other scientists are not scienting and this is not scientific therefore its trash therefore my theory based on lizard people wins"

oilchange• 3 years ago

One of my favorite ideas in Structure is Kuhn's observation that contradictory evidence seldom suffices to overturn a scientific theory.

That's not Kuhn's observation. Evidence immediately overturns a theory. What evidence doesn't do is get the scientific establishment to accept the new evidence. It's why paradigm shifts are rare and take a lot of time to happen. In many instances, society simply has to wait for the old to die and the new to gain power.

(particularly in political discussions).

That was kuhn's point. Science operates more like politics and religion than science. Many times there is no reason, evidence or argument to change poeple's minds. You have to simply wait for the old guard to die off so that the new guard can usher in a paradigm shift.

It's how einstein went to the grave believing "god does not play dice" regardless of all the evidence. And his death moved physics from the deterministic to the nondeterministic world ( paradigm shift ). For all the praise einstein gets, he was wrong about the most important and fundamental aspect of physics.

8bitsrule• 3 years ago

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [pdf]

Related Stories