On the 6th, James Fischer wrote (on BEE-L, in small part, about the
historian and philosoher, Thomas Kuhn), as follows:
>As an aside, the MIT article referenced:
> www.technologyreview.com/magazine/nov01/insight.asp
>
>is just one of thousands of refutations of Thomas Kuhn, who
>coined the make-me-gag phrase "paradigm shift". Kuhn was
>completely discredited in the 1960s, when he published his
>book, "The Structure Of Scientific Revolutions".
*********
Actually, in the early 1960s Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book helped my
co-workers and myself understand how scientists could become so committed
to dogma that they would not consider solid evidence counter to their
beliefs.
Fischer's remarks (e.g., Kuhn being "completely discredited") steered me
to our campus (UCSB) bookstore, where I picked up the first relevant book
on the appropriate shelf: (INTRODUCTION TO THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE:
Cutting Nature at its Seams. Oxford Univ. Press, 1997).
That book was written by Robert Klee, Professor of Philosophy and Chair
of the Dept. of Philosophy and Religion at Ithaca College; he is also
editor of SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY: READINGS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE.
In that book Klee devotes chapter 7 (pages 129-155, "The Revenge of
Historicism") to Kuhn's impact on science and in the philosophy of science.
Klee wrote: "One purpose of this chapter is to attempt to rectify the
enormous distortion of Kuhn's view that has slowly grown all too familiar
during the ensuing four decades since the publication of his masterpiece."
Clearly, we have a discrepancy here between Fischer's comments and
Klee's endorsement of Kuhn. The 36 pages in Klee's chapter provide a
pretty good and clear notion of what the fuss is all about, but I am quite
certain that BEE-L subscribers would not want to wade through all the
intricacies of what might be no more than a conflict between how scientists
believe they work and the view of philophers about that process.
Actually, attacks on Kuhn have become somewhat of a moot point with the
discovery that most of his most cogent statements perhaps originated with
Ludwik Fleck, an esteemed Polish doctor and (at the time) the world's
authority on syphilis and typhoid. Kuhn had read Fleck's 1935 book
(GENESIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF A SCIENTIFIC FACT) before he wrote his book,
the one that eventually became a "classic" in the fields of sociology,
psychology, philosophy, etc.
Fortunately, two sociologists translated Fleck's book into English and
had it published in 1979 by the University of Chicago Press. Anyone
interested can order a copy of Fleck's book directly from that press
[1-(800) 621-2736] for only about $15 (credit cards work). Pages 20-53 of
that book are most relevant to the question of why science proceeds so
slowly, but the remainder of the book is a treasure of description of
science in action. (I found the Biographical Sketch of Fleck at the end of
special interest.)
As indicated on the BEE-L list on the 5th, I covered some of this type
of material in an invited review paper, as follows:
1997 Wenner, A.M. The role of controversy in animal behavior. Pages 3-37
in Greenberg, C. and E. Tobach (eds). Comparative Psychology of
Invertebrates:The Field and Laboratory Study of Insect Behavior. Garland
Publishing, New York.
A copy of that paper is now on its way to Barry Birkey, who indicated he
would include it (perhaps as Item #31) in the following Point of View:
http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm
Adrian
Adrian M. Wenner (805) 963-8508 (home phone)
967 Garcia Road (805) 893-8062 (UCSB FAX)
Santa Barbara, CA 93106 [http://www.beesource.com/pov/wenner/index.htm]
********************************************************************
*
* "However broad-minded one may be, he is always to some extent
* the slave of his education and of his past."
*
* Emile Duclaux (1896; 1920 translation)
*
********************************************************************
|
