| BOOKS and COOKS HOMEPAGE PEOPLEBooks and Cooks participants, email addresses and homepages where available.
 PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS and RATING SYSTEMCheck out some of the books we've discussed in the past, as well as our rating system and
    ratings for those books.
 RECIPROCITYThere are lots of other book groups out there. On this page find some links to bookgroups
    we've had e-contact with.
 BOOK LINKSCheck out this pile of book-related links.
 | The
      Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn The
      first Books and Cooks DRINK and THINK Discussion date: March 31, 2000 Discussion place: Jen's Place,
      7PM Menu: Order-in Chinese, mixed
      drinks. 
 B&C recommender: I've
      read several excerpts from this book and found it to have an interesting
      perspective on the non-scientific factors that influence how
      science advances; I've been meaning to read the entire thing. Amazon says: There's a "Frank &
      Ernest" comic strip showing a chick breaking out of its
      shell, looking around, and saying, "Oh, wow! Paradigm shift!"
      Blame the late Thomas Kuhn. Few indeed
      are the philosophers or historians influential
      enough to make it into the funny papers, but Kuhn is one. The Structure of Scientific
      Revolutions is indeed a paradigmatic work in the
      history of science. Kuhn's use of terms such as "paradigm shift"
      and "normal science," his
      ideas of how scientists move from disdain through doubt
      to acceptance of a new theory, his stress on social and psychological
      factors in science--all have had profound effects on historians,
      scientists, philosophers, critics, writers, business gurus, and
      even the cartoonist in the street. Some scientists (such as
      Steven Weinberg and Ernst Mayr) are profoundly irritated
      by Kuhn, especially by the doubts he casts--or the way he his work
      has been used to cast doubt--on the idea of scientific progress. Yet
      it has been said that the acceptance of plate
      tectonics in the 1960s, for instance,
      was sped by geologists' reluctance to be on the downside of a paradigm
      shift. Even Weinberg has said that "Structure has had a wider influence
      than any other book on the history of science." As one of Kuhn's
      obituaries noted, "we all live in a
      post-Kuhnian age."   
 The Books and Cooks The Structure of
    Scientific Revolutions Informal Reading Guide(member-generated questions in no particular order)
 
        
          Is Kuhn's theory of 'crisis followed by a paradigm
          shift' really not aplicable to areas other than science (as he
          argues)? Did you buy that part of his argument? 
          Topic: "Almost always the men who achieve these
          fundamental mentions of a new paradigm have been either very young or
          very new to the field whose paradigm they change." (p. 40).
          Discuss.
          Kuhn includes lots of scientific case studies to
          support his theories. Did you find these a help or a hindrance? I.e.,
          did you read all the examples -- especially those you didn't already
          know about, or did you skim them? 
          Kuhn claims that scientists are motivated to do
          science because of the 'challenge of the puzzle', not the importance
          of the problem. Is this accurate? He implies this is good and possibly
          necessary to the process of science. Do you agree? Where does this
          leave the issue of social responsibility in science? 
          Topic: "Once a first paradigm through which to
          view nature has been found, there is no such thing as research in the
          absence of any paradigm. To reject one paradigm without simultaneously
          substituting another is to reject science itself." (p. 79). Do
          you really think so? 
          How does computer science fit into the Kuhnian
          paradigm? 
          What would Kuhn say about truth? 
          Topic: "Scientists have not generally needed or
          wanted to be philosophers." (p. 88) What?!?!
          Kuhn equates science and progress, saying that the
          characteristic of making progress defines what fields are science.
          Does this seem accurate? What exactly does Kuhn mean by the word
          'progress' when he says this? 
          Do paradigms ever repeat? (Like 70's fashions??)
          On p. 37 Kuhn noted the only problems the scientific
          community will permit/encourage its members to undertake are those
          that fit existing paradigms. Kuhn identified this issue more than 30
          years ago. Has the scientific community changed since then? 
          Topic: "Given a textbook, the creative scientist
          can begin his research where it leaves off and thus concentrate
          exclusively upon the subtles and most esoteric aspects....No longer
          will his research...be...in books addressed... to anyone who might be
          interested in the subject matter of the field. Instead they will
          usually appear as brief articles addressed only to professional
          colleagues, the men whose knowledge of a shared paradigm can be
          assumed and who prove to be the only ones able to read the papers
          addressed to them." (p. 20). This rather depresses me.
          Discuss.  This Page Last Revised: November 21, 2000. |