Summary of Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Everest Media

Description

Please note: This is a companion version & not the original book.
Sample Book Insights:
#1 The scientific method is cumulative, and it progressess towards the truth. However, a revolution changes the domain, and the language in which we speak about some aspect of nature. It redirects to a new portion of nature to study.
#2 After Structure, American scholarship in philosophy and the sciences became dominated by sociological studies of science. This development was not welcomed by many younger workers, who felt that Kuhn had denigrated the importance of truth in science.
#3 The book changed the image of science, and it forever changed the way people viewed science. It changed the way people viewed science because it undermined all the positivist doctrines implicit in the Vienna Circle project.
#4 The essay that follows is the first full published report on a project that I had started years ago. It was a shift from physics to history of science, and then back to the more philosophical concerns that had initially drawn me to history.

Sujets

• Général

Informations

• Publié par: Everest Media LLC
• Date de parution: 09 mars 2022
• Nombre de lectures: 2
• EAN13: 9781669351771
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Insights on Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
Contents Insights from Chapter 1 Insights from Chapter 2 Insights from Chapter 3 Insights from Chapter 4 Insights from Chapter 5 Insights from Chapter 6 Insights from Chapter 7 Insights from Chapter 8 Insights from Chapter 9 Insights from Chapter 10 Insights from Chapter 11 Insights from Chapter 12 Insights from Chapter 13
Insights from Chapter 1

#1

The scientific method is cumulative, and it progressess towards the truth. However, a revolution changes the domain, and the language in which we speak about some aspect of nature. It redirects to a new portion of nature to study.

#2

After Structure, American scholarship in philosophy and the sciences became dominated by sociological studies of science. This development was not welcomed by many younger workers, who felt that Kuhn had denigrated the importance of truth in science.

#3

The book changed the image of science, and it forever changed the way people viewed science. It changed the way people viewed science because it undermined all the positivist doctrines implicit in the Vienna Circle project.

#4

The essay that follows is the first full published report on a project that I had started years ago. It was a shift from physics to history of science, and then back to the more philosophical concerns that had initially drawn me to history.

#5

I was a Junior Fellow at the Society of Fellows, and during my last year, I delivered eight public lectures on the quest for physical theory. In 1951, I began to teach history of science, and for almost a decade, the problems of instructing in a field I had never studied before left little time for articulating the ideas that had brought me to it.

#6

The final stage in the development of this essay was spent at the Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, where I was able to give my full attention to the issues discussed. I was surprised by the number and extent of the disagreements between social scientists about the nature of legitimate scientific problems and methods.

#7

The history of science is full of anomalies, or violations of expectation. These anomalies attract the attention of a scientific community, and are studied until they are resolved.

#8

My intellectual development was influenced by James B. Conant, who introduced me to the history of science. He has been generous with his ideas, criticisms, and time. Leonard K. Nash was my collaborator for five years when my ideas first began to take shape, and he has been missed during the later stages of their development.

#9

I have had many people help me reform the book, from my colleagues at the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory to my friends and family. They have all contributed intellectual ingredients to my work, but they have also encouraged my devotion to it.

#10

The history of science is the study of the development of scientific facts, laws, and theories. It is the process by which these items have been added to the ever-growing stockpile that constitutes scientific technique and knowledge.

#11

The traditional view of science, which assumes that science develops by the accumulation of individual discoveries and inventions, is not the only view of science. The new historiography suggests that science may have included bodies of belief that were quite incompatible with the ones we hold today.

#12

The insufficiency of methodological directives to dictate a unique conclusion to many scientific questions is demonstrated by the fact that many scientists arrive at different conclusions about the same questions. The answers to these questions are often determined by the individual and his prior experience.

#13

Normal science is the activity in which most scientists spend their time. It is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like. However, so long as those commitments retain an element of the arbitrary, the very nature of normal research ensures that novelty will not be suppressed for long.

#14

Scientific revolutions are characterized by the community’s rejection of one time-honored scientific theory in favor of another incompatible with it.