Goodreads helps you keep track of books you want to read.

Start by marking “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” as Want to Read:

Other editions

Enlarge cover

Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Open Preview

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Thomas S. Kuhn

4.03 · Rating details · 24,845 ratings · 1,379 reviews

A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were—and still are. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. When it was first published in 19 ...more

Get A Copy

Paperback, Third Edition, 226 pages

Published 1996 by University of Chicago Press (first published 1962)

More Details... Edit Details

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Reader Q&A

To ask other readers questions about The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson

A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking

Best Science Books - Non-Fiction Only

1,661 books — 3,614 voters

The Complete Works by William Shakespeare

The Most Influential Books

1,285 books — 5,246 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

Showing 1-30

Average rating 4.03 ·

Rating details

· 24,845 ratings · 1,379 reviews

More filters

Sort order

Start your review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Jan 24, 2013 Manny rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Recommends it for: Anyone seriously interested in the history of science

Shelves: history-and-biography, if-research-were-romance, science, linguistics-and-philosophy

Scientists are so passionate about their work, and even if you're a scientist yourself it can sometimes take you by surprise to see just how passionate they are. A few years ago, when I was working at NASA, we made up a game called If Research Were Romance. Here, let me show you how to play.

In real life, Thomas Kuhn wrote a book about paradigm changes in science. But if research were romance, he might have written a book about relationships instead. It might have been quite similar in many ways. Scientists are so passionate about their work, and even if you're a scientist yourself it can sometimes take you by surprise to see just how passionate they are. A few years ago, when I was working at NASA, we made up a game called If Research Were Romance. Here, let me show you how to play.

In real life, Thomas Kuhn wrote a book about paradigm changes in science. But if research were romance, he might have written a book about relationships instead. It might have been quite similar in many ways. Scientists care so much about their theories that you won't go far wrong if you think about the feelings they have for those theories as being similar to the feelings that normal people have for their significant others.

If research were romance, Thomas Kuhn might have said that, when you're in a committed relationship, that relationship colors all your life. A lot of what you do and think only makes sense in terms of the relationship. And everyone over, say, 20, knows that relationships are not always easy. You're continually having problems, some of them little, some of them not so little. But if you're prepared to work on them, you can usually solve those problems, and when you've done so you usually feel that the relationship is stronger, not weaker. The fact that you've surmounted the problem gives you more faith in the relationship.

If research were romance, Thomas Kuhn might have gone on to say that sometimes you get another feeling. The problems won't disappear, or they go away in one form and immediately return in another. You start to feel that the relationship is undergoing a real crisis. But you'll probably still continue to work on it, unless you meet another person who offers you a chance of something different. If you've been in your relationship a long time, it will feel difficult to consider seriously the idea of abandoning it and starting a new one. Sometimes, though, people do this. They won't really know why they're taking this drastic step, and they won't be able to justify it clearly in their minds. It will just seem like the right thing to do.

If research were romance, Thomas Kuhn might have added that, after the old relationship has ended and the new one has started, it will be hard to see your old life in the same terms. Your view of it will now be colored by your new relationship. Now, you will probably only be able to see the old relationship as containing faults which you never noticed at the time. You will not really be able to remember what it was like.

If research were romance, Thomas Kuhn might have said that some people believe that they have a true soulmate out there, and it's just a question of finding that special person they are fated to be with. But he wouldn't have believed that. He'd have said that people sometimes change their partner, and often they may do it for a good reason. But there is no absolute sense in which the new partner is better suited to them than the old one. They are better in some ways and worse in others.

If research were romance, Thomas Kuhn would have been a rock star. Security staff would have been needed to stop groupies getting into his hotel room and he'd have been unsure about how many children he'd fathered. He'd have played it down in interviews, but everyone would have known what the deal was.

If you also work in science, I encourage you to experiment with this game. You'll be amazed how much insight it gives you into what's really going on.
...more

flag 464 likes · Like · see review

Feb 04, 2013 Stephen M rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy, textbook

With the publication of this landmark work, Kuhn gave an entirely new way to think about science and the process of scientific discovery; it completely contradicted what was previously believed about the functioning of scientific discovery and how we came to discoveries about the natural world. The philosophy of science before Kuhn began writing was most influenced by Karl Popper. He put forth the popular notion of falsifiability, whereby all scientific theories are tenable only if they are fals ...more

flag 109 likes · Like · see review

Jul 23, 2018 Roy Lotz rated it it was amazing

Shelves: footnotes-to-plato, ignorance-of-experts, misanthropology, highly-recommended-favorites, history-of-science

To listen to this review as a podcast, click below:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
________________________

Observation and experience can and must drastically restrict the range of admissible scientific belief, else there would be no science. But they cannot alone determine a particular body of such belief. An apparently arbitrary element, compounded of personal and historical accident, is always a formative ingredient of the beliefs espoused by a given scientific community at a given

...more

flag 64 likes · Like · see review

Aug 15, 2010 Jason rated it liked it

Remember your 10th grade Geometry class? It was a 55 minute class just before lunch. Picture yourself, 15 years old, Friday, ensconced in Geometry on a beautiful late September day. If you’re a girl, you’re much more interested in whether the new boy is going to sit with Amber during lunch for a third day in a row, and what he’s going to say to her this time; he’s so confident and handsome. If you’re a guy, you’re much more interested in the 17 year old Varsity cheerleader at the front of your c Remember your 10th grade Geometry class? It was a 55 minute class just before lunch. Picture yourself, 15 years old, Friday, ensconced in Geometry on a beautiful late September day. If you’re a girl, you’re much more interested in whether the new boy is going to sit with Amber during lunch for a third day in a row, and what he’s going to say to her this time; he’s so confident and handsome. If you’re a guy, you’re much more interested in the 17 year old Varsity cheerleader at the front of your class, in uniform, school particolors pleated in the skirt, which is caught in a chair rivet and pulling the material agonizingly close to the lace edge of her panty, which you hope is vivid monochrome pink. Now imagine your eremitic teacher with Asperger’s syndrome intruding on those daydreams with a methodical, laborious, sterile mathematical proof. At the chalkboard, in mind-numbing detail, in plodding repetition, with no class participation, the teacher steps through the proof which begins by repeating the same several transitive properties by which all geometric proofs begin. Despite the fantastic universe of 3-dimensional rotation and neato equations to find volume, geometry is rendered lifeless on the chalkboard by these relentless proofs.

This, then, is the tone of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions--from beginning to end--by Thomas Kuhn. This is great material, just like geometry, but the narrative is like reading a proof that takes up 3 pages in your spiral notebook or Trapper Keeper. Kuhn received a B.S., an M.S., and a PhD in physics from Harvard U. As a Harvard Fellow, he experienced an epiphany, and changed his life focus to the philosophy of Science. He subsequently taught philosophy at Berkley and MIT. Kuhn does not lack credibility. His ideas are provocative. However, his writing lacks verve, vim and vigor. Like a geometry proof, and so characteristic of a mathematician, Kuhn belabors his points with structured, routinized precision that keeps the subject firmly grounded, and, as a result, narratively flat.

There’s great, thoughtful, and comprehensive support for his thesis, but like a proof, he is so exact that each subsequent sentence restates about half of the previous sentence, and each subsequent paragraph reconsiders half the previous paragraph. Each subsequent chapter starts somewhat like, “as stated in the previous chapter we now know X, Y and Z; we can summarized X, Y and Z as &c, &c, &c; we can therefore move to the idea that &c, &c, &c.” Just like a mathematical proof--in gory detail. This non-fiction creeps along at parking lot speeds of 5 mph.

But this is an instructive book nevertheless. It’s an essential 4- to 5-star read for mathematicians, physicists, and engineers--really any practitioners of the ‘hard’ sciences. Written in 1961, the scientific revolutions that Kuhn outlines are no less relevant today than at publication. He leans heavily on major revolutions of the past, conceding that sometimes several generations need to pass before the proper perspective can be achieved in science, or what Kuhn declares as ‘mature science.’ So, he defines, characterizes, and compares revolutions in math (Aristarchus, Newton, Descartes) and physics (Copernicus, Kepler, Planck, Einstein) and astronomy (Ptolemy, Brahe, Galileo) and motion (Aristotle, Archimedes) and electromagnetism (Franklin, Leyden, Coulumb, Joule) and chemistry (Lavoisier, Boyle, Dalton, Kelvin). It’s important for theoretical problem-solvers and lay practitioners alike to read in methodical detail what might seem at first intuitive, but over the course of 210 pages, develops into a compelling analysis of attributes that all scientific revolutions display, and, going forward, what attributes that future scientific revolutions might project.

I'm not a scientist. 3 stars. ...more

flag 50 likes · Like · see review

Jan 04, 2011 Trevor rated it liked it

Shelves: philosophy, science, social-theory

Let’s start elsewhere. Watch this and then we can talk paradigms:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ahg6qc...

Now, I don’t normally do that – nor do I like to talk about optical illusions. I generally think illusions mean quite other things to what most people like to say they mean. I find that people tend to say the most boringly predictable things about optical illusions. That is a large part of the source of my aversion to them, like Pavlov’s dogs, I have been taught to cringe at the first sight o ...more

flag 35 likes · Like · see review

Mar 07, 2009 Tyler rated it did not like it

Recommends it for: Science Professionals, Possibly

Recommended to Tyler by: GR Group Read List

Shelves: philosophy

Within this book, a 15-page essay somehow gets crammed into 174 tedious pages and crowned by a lengthy 35-page postscript. In its chapters Kuhn, father of the expression “paradigm shift,” shows us how science advances in spasmodic fractures that shatter previous models of nature. But at 210 pages, mission creep sinks in.

The book does more than propose a new model of scientific progress. It also tells us why other models are mistaken. Kuhn refutes the correspondence theory of truth, logical posit ...more

flag 28 likes · Like · see review

May 12, 2019 Jamie Smith rated it really liked it

Shelves: science

When this book came out fifty years ago it changed the terms of the debate about what scientific progress meant. Using multiple historical examples, and drawing on his own extensive research into the history of science, Thomas Kuhn developed an intellectual framework for how science develops, progresses, and changes in response to new paradigms. At the time of his writing the word paradigm was obscure and unknown to most readers, but it has since entered our common vocabulary, and this book is w When this book came out fifty years ago it changed the terms of the debate about what scientific progress meant. Using multiple historical examples, and drawing on his own extensive research into the history of science, Thomas Kuhn developed an intellectual framework for how science develops, progresses, and changes in response to new paradigms. At the time of his writing the word paradigm was obscure and unknown to most readers, but it has since entered our common vocabulary, and this book is where the phrase “paradigm shift” comes from.

Science starts with chaos, with multiple competing theories, each answering different but related questions, none of them providing a focal point for explaining a broad range of phenomena or predicting the outcome of future experiments. Then comes a breakthrough, such as Copernican cosmology, Newtonian mechanics, or John Dalton’s atomic theory of chemistry. Importantly, the new understanding does not answer all the questions within its purview (no theory ever encompasses one hundred percent of possible situations), but it is sufficiently complete and broadly explanatory enough to serve as a theoretical framework on which to build. Some scientists embrace it right away, some are gradually convinced of its appropriateness, and some never come around to the new way of thinking. The author quotes Max Plank who, “surveying his own career, sadly remarked that ‘a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it’”. (150)

Then starts the era of normal science, where students are taught the new approach, experiments are conducted which further solidify its position, expand its use, and answer previously unanswerable questions. Kuhn points out two important aspects of this. First, the questions the new paradigm answers are generally applicable only within the new framework. The previous theories answered different questions, and their answers were not necessarily wrong, just inapplicable in the new system, so some things of value from the older understanding were lost. Second, teachers teach and students learn the new way of thinking, which sets boundaries on the kinds of questions they ask, the experiments they perform, and the way they interpret the results. They are not taught to question the paradigm or perform experiments which might invalidate it, so progress, while valuable, stays within the constraints of what is considered possible and appropriate.

Eventually gaps are found in the prevailing paradigm and experiments to try to address them only confirm their existence and turn up new problems. The Ptolemaic system was adequate for predicting the positions of stars and planets, but it was never precise. Copernican astronomy was better but still not perfect; Einsteinian theories, accounting for relativity, are even better, but there are always gaps between the predicted and the observed locations.

At some point the issues become a major problem for scientists, and as doubts accumulate chaos starts to return as multiple new theories are put forward. Eventually one of them answers most of the questions and becomes the new generally accepted paradigm, and the process starts over again.

The other term that this book brought into the common discourse is incommensurability, the idea that the holders of the current paradigms look at the world differently from those of previous paradigms, and many of the questions asked by one theory are out of scope for the others. This is important because we tend to think of science as a steady progression from ignorance to ever greater knowledge, but it is actually more of a step function. Young scientists are taught the current paradigm but the previous ones are thought to be of no importance, superseded by the “right way to do things.” As a result, for all the progress made, we lose something when we become unable to see the world through those different, older lenses of thought. Answers to some questions which seem unsolvable today might be found by looking at the data and asking different questions about it.

This book is not casual reading. Kuhn writes in dense academic prose. For example, chapter five begins

To discover the relation between rules, paradigms, and normal science, consider first how the historian isolates the particular loci of commitment that have just been described as accepted rules. Close historical investigation of a given specialty at a given time discloses a set of recurrent and quasi-standard illustrations of various theories in their conceptual, observational, and instrumental applications. (43)

Nevertheless, this book repays a close reading. Since it first came out it has enjoyed a reputation as an essential reference for scientists and historians of science. It provides a way of thinking about the current state of science, and intriguing ideas about how to enhance and extend the art of the possible, to see the world in ways which are both new and old at the same time, and to answer questions that previously could not even be formulated. ...more

flag 25 likes · Like · see review

Jan 12, 2016 Maica rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, philosophy

I can understand why the author thanked his family for their consideration of the author's efforts towards this book, as it must have demanded a lot of painstaking effort not to mention time. I would have given it 3 stars for its complicated way of delivering its points; the language is highly complex that it tends at many certain points throughout, that the arguments contradict each other. Five stars, however for its complexity and taken as a whole it is actually coherent.

description

Like the choice be
...more

flag 23 likes · Like · see review

Oct 07, 2011 Adam rated it it was amazing

Shelves: 1900-1969, philosophy

a response to some of the reviews here:

From those giving the book a negative rating, we inevitably get the standard accusation of relativism, which is bullshit and Kuhn and his followers have responded appropriately. A positive three-star review says Kuhn's major thesis is that scientific progress is largely illusory, when Kuhn says nothing of the sort and has also defended himself against such objections in the past by explaining, very simply, what a careful reader would have already gleaned fr a response to some of the reviews here:

From those giving the book a negative rating, we inevitably get the standard accusation of relativism, which is bullshit and Kuhn and his followers have responded appropriately. A positive three-star review says Kuhn's major thesis is that scientific progress is largely illusory, when Kuhn says nothing of the sort and has also defended himself against such objections in the past by explaining, very simply, what a careful reader would have already gleaned from reading this book [his actual point is related to the correspondence theory of truth; he argues that while we frequently hear that "successive theories grow ever closer to, or approximate more and more closely to, the truth," that is often not the case; he says "I do not doubt, for example, that Newton's mechanics improves on Aristotle's and that Einstein's improves on Newton's as instruments for puzzle-solving. But I can see in their succession no coherent direction of ontological development." Kuhn has repeatedly both explicitly and implicitly identified himself as a firm believer in scientific progress].

Others here bemoan the length of the book, even though it is short. As a historian of science, Kuhn has the responsibility to be thorough and clear. Considering the subject matter, Kuhn is actually concise. Perhaps some of these readers are better off reading continental philosophy on science, wherein philosophers feel free to assert their theses without rigorous, well-constructed arguments. Kuhn's education was in Physics, but he is most assuredly a sophisticated philosopher, whose style is rooted in the analytic tradition.

Kuhn's arguments are well-constructed, and he takes great care to address a substantial number of possible flaws in his own thinking, to back up his ideas with scientific history, to detail the nature of his thesis.

Unfortunately, those who feel this was a 15 page essay with a lot of padding probably so badly mischaracterize Kuhn's position because of their presumptions. Kuhn does not waste a single sentence here, and there is nothing of insignificance. Perhaps more attentive readers would not strawman him and misrepresent his position.

All this is not to say that Kuhn does not have his sophisticated critics, but it's frustrating to see so many comments here that are quite clearly nonsense. I don't say this because I'm a pompous jackass (although I am), I say this because of the sheer amount of misrepresentation and misinformation here.

It's refreshing, however, to see that a number of fellow goodreads members, and not just I, think the applicability of this book's arguments is wide. ...more

flag 16 likes · Like · see review

Jul 28, 2008 Greg rated it really liked it

Shelves: philosophy, professional-development

I first read Kuhn's book during my first year as a Ph.D. student, and found it rather interesting. It challenges notions of scientific progress as liner by suggesting instead a process of "paradigm shift." Essentially, Kuhn argues that researchers in a branch of science accept as normal a set of "received beliefs" that guide and bound their investigations into new phenomena. Because of this set of accepted beliefs and assumptions, new ways of looking at the world are often suppressed or ignored. ...more

flag 15 likes · Like · see review

Sep 28, 2021 Rossdavidh rated it really liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: black

There are some people in the history of thought, great thinkers in most cases, who nonetheless become known primarily for one book, or even just one idea. It's no great disgrace; Copernicus had only one significant publication. Being a "one-hit wonder" still makes you a wonder. In the case of Thomas Kuhn, his magnum opus is probably a two word phrase:

"paradigm shift"

If you have never heard it, well, what are you doing on Goodreads? But in the off chance that you're just new to the English langua ...more

flag 13 likes · Like · see review

Sep 01, 2008 Coral rated it did not like it

Recommends it for: insomniacs

Shelves: nonfiction, horrible, did-not-finish

Bit of a preface: I hated this book. It contains some really good ideas, which are totally worth discussing, but the whole thing is so much wordier and denser than it needs to be (this, coming from me!); seriously, the ideas put forth in this 200-page monstrosity would have been better shared in a 5-10 page article. Still, we were assigned to read it for LIS 2000, Understanding Information, and asked to write a 400-word review, describing "how the content of this book relates to the information ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

May 27, 2009 Erik Graff rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

Recommends it for: everyone

Recommended to Erik by: John Bannon

Shelves: philosophy

Kuhn, a physicist and philosopher and historian of science, wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in 1962, producing other editions until his death in 1996. The book was very influential (see description), serving as a starting point for reappraisals within several disciplines. One, psychology, was specifically covered by John Bannon's Philosophy of Psychology class held during the second semester of 1982/83 at Loyola University Chicago.

I found the book profoundly stimulating, challengin ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Jun 04, 2015 David M rated it it was amazing

5-30-21 Reread this for the first time in about 11 years. I remain extremely impressed.

*
Truth is not a criterion of scientific progress.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is one of the greatest books of the last century. More than fifty years later it retains its ability to shock. Despite ubiquitous talk of "paradigm shifts," our culture has yet to fully absorb and appreciate it.

Fun fact (well, to me anyway): Hans-Georg Gadamer and Thomas Kuhn were mutual admirers. Gadamer cites this book ...more

flag 12 likes · Like · see review

Jul 29, 2011 Leonard rated it it was amazing

Shelves: favorite, philosophy

Thomas Kuhn, through the concept of paradigm shift, has demythologized science as an accumulation of knowledge through smooth progress. That, for Kuhn, is just normal science, the incremental progress within the limits, biases and assumptions of a paradigm. For him, a paradigm is a set of accepted practices within the scientific community, the scientific traditions the scientists have grown up with. For him, “The success of a paradigm… is at the start largely a promise of success discoverable in ...more

flag 11 likes · Like · see review

Dec 08, 2019 Vagabond of Letters, DLitt rated it it was amazing · review of another edition

10/10. Sixth ever perfect nonfiction rating: 'Structure' is not overrated at all.

This is the scientific counterpart to the invaluable work of Alisdair MacIntyre in philosophy. Those works ('After Virtue', 'Whose Justice?', 'Three Rival Versions') are some of the most important for understanding the practice of philosophy and the seemingly-insurmountable aporiae in philosophy and ethics.

Kuhn's work does the same for science, is extensible to many other disciplines, and is the only work I'm aware ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Mar 25, 2009 Jrobertus rated it did not like it

I understand this is a fairly famous book, but I don't understand why. There is enough material for a short essay, and here it is. As scientific instruments and measurements improve, discrepancies appear between what is observed and what the current theory, or paradigm, predicts. As a result, the theory or paradigm must change, but some people resist it. The change from the geocentric model of Ptolemy to the helio-centric model of Copernicus is an example, as it the change from Aristotle to Newt ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Feb 04, 2019 Mehrsa rated it really liked it

Really fascinating book about how science changes--how old theories (paradigms) fall apart and new ones develop. I think this theory also applies to political theories and other cultural ideas. This book is old, but it's a classic and I learned a lot ...more

flag 9 likes · Like · see review

Jun 16, 2009 Marcus rated it it was amazing

Shelves: science, physics

The premise of the book is that science doesn't progress by the cumulative addition of knowledge, but instead advances by major shifts in paradigms that replace, rather than increment, large parts of previous paradigms.

To begin with, scientific research in a specific subject is carried out within the bounds of a generally accepted framework that defines what scientists already know about the field, as well as the questions that remain unanswered. This is what Kuhn calls a paradigm. A paradigm i The premise of the book is that science doesn't progress by the cumulative addition of knowledge, but instead advances by major shifts in paradigms that replace, rather than increment, large parts of previous paradigms.

To begin with, scientific research in a specific subject is carried out within the bounds of a generally accepted framework that defines what scientists already know about the field, as well as the questions that remain unanswered. This is what Kuhn calls a paradigm. A paradigm is useful because it defines puzzles that need to be solved and gives a set rules for them to be solved in. Over time, the paradigm is more fully explored and is broken down into smaller and more specific problems. To solve them, scientists develop specialized equipment and detailed experiments are carried out. Scientists experiment not to generate an unknown result, but with a hypothesis that has an expected result. The paradigm they're working under has helped them predict results and expect an answer.

Eventually however, problems are discovered that can't be effectively solved within the rules of the paradigm. At first, these types of problems can be worked around by making adjustments in rules of the paradigm. Ultimately, as it is explored more deeply and the rules become more complex, a problem or problems arise that simply cannot be answered elegantly with the paradigm. As these difficult problems gain notice, they become recognized as the problems in most urgent need of a solution. When there is a big problem like this it can either be ignored until better equipment is available, made to fit by adjusting the current paradigm or, most interestingly, it can lead to the development of a new theory, or group of theories that attempt to solve the problem. As alternate competing theories are proposed to address the crises, eventually one gains enough traction among scientists to become the new paradigm.

One of the examples used in the book is how Einstein's relativity became the paradigm that replaced Newtonian physics. What happened was not that Newtonian physics was found to be outdated and immediately replaced with the theory of relativity, in fact that theory is still useful within a large number of applications today. Instead, it was recognized that there is a very limited set of parameters in which Newtonian physics is accurate--specifically for calculating interactions between objects moving at relatively low velocities, but that outside those parameters, Newtonian physics will lead to incorrect assumptions. The theory of relativity solves the same problems that Newtonian physics does, but it also works with objects moving at high velocities. Rather than just building upon Newtonian physics incrementally, relativity supplanted large parts of it, even as scientists recognized that parts of Newtonian physics remain useful in certain contexts.

To me, a non-scientist, rather than being controversial, this is a really useful way to think about science, and beyond science to how change and progress occur in almost any field. To a scientist, I can see how Kuhn's ideas are controversial. They mean that what scientists see and look for in observational and experimental data is not analyzed and recorded completely objectively but that scientists are heavily biased by what they believe and expect they're going to find. It 'accuses' scientists of viewing data and the experiments they choose to perform relatively, rather than objectively or positively (there is a long and hairy philosophical argument on relative knowledge that I will avoid getting into). Kuhn, rather than criticizing scientists for their subjective view on data, believes that viewing science this way is unavoidable, and in fact beneficial because it trains scientists to recognize patterns in data and to become adept with the data that they deal with. When a scientist is proficient at viewing data within the bounds of a paradigm, they are, in turn, well-prepared to view anomalies in the way their paradigm interprets data. This leads to the tough problems that are escalated to criseses in the paradigm and eventually, to the development of new paradigms. ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Aug 10, 2011 Katie rated it really liked it

Shelves: history

Original, 2-star review:

I think the common criticisms that have been popping up here - Kuhn's conclusions are very relativistic, and he's not always clear or concise in the way he conveys them - are fair. Kuhn puts forth a very interesting theory, and I think at least a few sections are very helpful when approaching the history of science. But it's certainly not a fun read, and much of the argument's density could have been fairly easily avoided. If you're a scientist, or have an interest in the ...more

flag 8 likes · Like · see review

Aug 12, 2016 Liam rated it liked it

Shelves: on-philosophy, on-science

Thomas Kuhn raises some interesting points about how textbook science education is misleading.

He also suggests that revolutions occur when non-specialists make revolutionary observations that conflict with established observations (paradigm), leading to a crisis that inspires work that makes the paradigm 'shift' to a new one.

Ultimately this book is not getting a 4* because though it raised interesting ideas, they were not as complex, practical, up-to-date or concisely written as I'd have liked Thomas Kuhn raises some interesting points about how textbook science education is misleading.

He also suggests that revolutions occur when non-specialists make revolutionary observations that conflict with established observations (paradigm), leading to a crisis that inspires work that makes the paradigm 'shift' to a new one.

Ultimately this book is not getting a 4* because though it raised interesting ideas, they were not as complex, practical, up-to-date or concisely written as I'd have liked. Kuhn touches on the 'social aspects' of science which is all that prior epistemologists may not have emphasised, but what he says is so out-dated to modern day science. We learn and write from original papers from year 1 in undergraduate university and barely use text books. There is open-access internet-access and youtube and email and all sorts of forms of communication that did not widely exist at the time he wrote this.

I was disappointed that he did not question more important factors than his 'mob mentality' argument for paradigm rigidity: the selection bias of journals for positive results, the arbitrariness of the p value, lab prestige, journal prestige, how funding is distributed and appreciated, the dissemination of English vs. non-English written reports... these are real-world variables that I can confidently claim are clearly affecting how paradigms (and the jobs that made them) are established. If anything, I think scientists these days are trying too hard to make revolutions by 'relativising' and 'reinterpret-to-create' approaches that progress might be slowing down. Ultimately, any decent scientist should already be aware of the main sentiments of this essay.

I honestly think Robert Pirsig writes a more readable and interesting case on epistemology in Zen & The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. Kuhn's essay was pretty hard for me to read as there was so much needless repetition of vague terminology, it was drier than Russell and was full of overgeneralised value judgements which one might suspect of an ex-physicist. Really this could have been written clearly in less than half the words.

Post-Review Ramble
As a scientist, I'd like to think I'm pretty balanced and open-minded. I take the time to appreciate arguments against science or its methods: art/science, animal or human welfare/science, God/science. I agree and disagree with the points that I initially deem as reasonable and with a practical implication for what I do.

Epidemiologists and statisticians, for example, have clearly changed the way I design and interpret my results, and I continue to rely on their critique to bring about what I believe is the most effective version of the truth that I am capable of.

But its when science historians and sociologists critique science as a method for empirical investigations of the natural world that I normally lose my cool. Not only do they sell short epistemologists by occasionally criticising or mildly developing and then renaming the work of prior epistemologists (like Popper, Russell, Kant), they rarely ever offer a pragmatic potential solution to the problem they have invented.

As an aside, I made an analogous interpretation here as to how surreal art (which intentionally blends truth and fiction) might promote 'psychological revolutions' by inducing a state of (existential) crisis in which the being, as does the scientist, then reassesses for the evidence (reality) required to cause a shift in perspective. But this has nothing to do with what Kuhn wrote, and probably makes no sense to anybody reading this. Clearly I was trying to make the thing more enjoyable and self-justify my art preferences. ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jan 14, 2012 Laura rated it liked it

Recommended to Laura by: Lists of books I'm supposed to have read

Shelves: canon, psychology, being-human, history, seminal-texts

I’ve seen citations to this book for decades, and it’s been on my shelf, unread-by-me, nearly as long. Finally read it. Kuhn contends that the then-accepted description of scientific process as a largely smooth increase in human knowledge isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s Hegelian-esque: an accepted model less and less satisfactory as more and more things are observed that do not fit; new models emerge and are resisted for reasons rational and not; and one fine day, the paradigm shifts. For reasons I’ve seen citations to this book for decades, and it’s been on my shelf, unread-by-me, nearly as long. Finally read it. Kuhn contends that the then-accepted description of scientific process as a largely smooth increase in human knowledge isn’t accurate. Instead, it’s Hegelian-esque: an accepted model less and less satisfactory as more and more things are observed that do not fit; new models emerge and are resisted for reasons rational and not; and one fine day, the paradigm shifts. For reasons rational and not, a new model becomes accepted. Repeat, with variations.

Reading it now, it’s a little unsatisfying. Yes, paradigms shift. Seen it happen. Some critical number of those in the relevant field of inquiry accept a paradigm, and there’s a new paradigm. Science, law, economics, whatever. I found myself in the odd position of explaining the gold standard, and what it means to have abandoned it, to a chum last Saturday. A paradigm shifted. In that, by a matter of decree, but still, only after some critical number of those in the relevant field accepted that a currency could be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States, and not just gold.

Kuhn suggests that paradigms don’t just shift because the new one is better; society doesn’t operate that way. Social enthusiasm for an idea matters a lot. Apparently that pissed a lot of people off at the time, which again from 2012 seems a little silly. We’re not just rational actors. I know I’m not. I loved Kuhn’s illustration of that with Lord Kelvin denouncing X-rays as a hoax. He had a commitment to a certain understanding of how tests worked, and the fact that there could be X-rays messing up the procedures was unsettling. I’m sure he came around.

I suspect I found the book somewhat unsatisfying because it’s central thesis – that we aren’t just rational; that progress is not slow and steady, and that the paradigm matters – is so well accepted that it’s hard to get excited about. Which is pleasingly meta, now that I come to think about it.
...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jan 31, 2015 Cee rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction, philosophy

Isn't it ironic that a book about paradigm shifts caused a paradigm shift in itself? And isn't it even more ironic that I'm studying this book from a humanities perspective, a science Kuhn himself might not even call a science?

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a fascinating book because it works out, detail after tiny detail, how a scientific revolution takes place. One of the most interesting ideas Kuhn posits is that we can't compare two paradigms with each other (say, Newtonian physi ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jun 22, 2013 notgettingenough rated it liked it · review of another edition

Shelves: science-sort-of, sociology

I have made an update to my review in response to comments.

http://alittleteaalittlechat.wordpres... ...more

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Aug 03, 2019 Vapula rated it really liked it

A great and classic work that gives a thorough and eruditious account of the evolution of science throughout history. Very much a humbling work for the sciences that allows a more guided approach.

flag 6 likes · Like · see review

Jan 31, 2016 Charlene rated it really liked it

Shelves: innovation, general-science, constructs, mindgasms, decision-making

Sometimes dry but an absolutely essential read for understanding how certain scientific paradigms remain stuck in place, despite new evidence that suggest a new paradigm should be adopted.

Throughout history society and scientific communities themselves refused to allow the advancement of various new ideas that were supported by myriad evidence. Even Einstein, one of the biggest progressives in scientific history, could not accept the implications of his own theory. Other scientists were too inv ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Nov 29, 2010 Semi-Academic Eric rated it really liked it

Shelves: creativity, science, thinking-re-thinking, critical-thinking, history, library-u-of-u, owned-books, innovation, to-read-more, strategic

Referred to by the authors of The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People and Future Edge: Discovering the New Paradigms of Success, this may help one see truths to bring forth new technologies, business models and other re-organizational necessities. ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Mar 13, 2020 Owlseyes marked it as to-read

Of course, Khun didn't foresee the coronavirus.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/... ...more

flag 5 likes · Like · see review

Nov 14, 2017 Xander rated it did not like it · review of another edition

What a terrible book! This is not my usual way to begin a review with, and certainly each author deserves a nuanced review of his or her works. But I simply can't believe that the author of The Copernican Revolutions (one of the best science books ever written!) is the same author that wrote The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Maybe the comparison is unfair, since the Copernican Revolution is a book - in which Kuhn gives an exposition of astronomical developments, from ancient Greek astrono ...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

Jul 27, 2011 Oliver Bateman rated it it was amazing

Yet another "important" book, one that advances a theory of "paradigm shift" to explain the transition between scientific worldviews (or transitions from pre-paradigm to paradigm worldviews, in the case of a coalescing field). Although written in an easy-to-understand way, Kuhn's presentation of this material--as evidenced by the somewhat defensive tone he adopts when responding to criticisms about his slipshod use of the term "paradigm" and his tendency to pass between descriptive and normative Yet another "important" book, one that advances a theory of "paradigm shift" to explain the transition between scientific worldviews (or transitions from pre-paradigm to paradigm worldviews, in the case of a coalescing field). Although written in an easy-to-understand way, Kuhn's presentation of this material--as evidenced by the somewhat defensive tone he adopts when responding to criticisms about his slipshod use of the term "paradigm" and his tendency to pass between descriptive and normative explanations of how science works (to which he replies, "'is' and 'ought' are by no means always so separate as they have seemed")--raises as many questions as it answers. His discussion of perception, in which he challenges the understanding that has prevailed since Descartes, is particularly confusing (in the postscript he refers to a "computer program" he is using to categorize "intuitions" of "scientists," although he offers the reader no idea of how such a program would work); and his treatment of incommensurability isn't much better, although he at least admits for the possibility of "translation" (but it seems to me that "translation" isn't the issue during "paradigm conflicts" that occur in a given generation; rather, the problem lies elsewhere). Kuhn also advances the conventional wisdom about "paradigms" being shattered most frequently by "young men" (he states that this is almost self-evident, that "extraordinary science" is a young man's game), yet offers only a handful of examples as support for this claim.

However, there are various excellent aspects of this work that bear mentioning: Section I ("A Role for History") sketches a useful way of applying history in order to understand the development of knowledge; Section XI ("The Invisibility of Revolutions") does a nice job of describing the problems with teaching history through science textbooks (and explains why the field is so singularly unaware of its past); and Section XIII ("Progress Through Revolutions") offers a fine critique of others who believe that science is somehow "different" than other fields because it is "getting better" or "working toward the truth."

That being written, I would recommend both Feyerabend's Against Method or the introductory essay in Foucault's The Order of Things in lieu of this work (although by all means read this book too, if you've got the time). Foucault's idea of the episteme--which looks at developments in various fields as a result of the "epistemological unconscious" of an era and does not rely for its foundation on a privileged definition of science (which Kuhn, coming from a background in physics, seeks to maintain: "puzzle-solving" is how he refers to "normal science")--is a much more cogent model of explanation. Foucault has also demonstrated the existence of connections among fields of knowledge (medicine, law, criminology, psychiatry, etc.) that Kuhn only hints at in Section XIII, and might, if pressed to mention them at all, even deem to be unrelated.

...more

flag 4 likes · Like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

topics	posts	views	last activity
Science and Inquiry: February 2022 - Scientific Revolutions	16	133	Mar 20, 2022 07:59PM
Books about Science	9	83	Aug 16, 2014 07:58AM
Science and Inquiry: Innovation and Tradition	2	31	Mar 16, 2013 09:51PM

Readers also enjoyed

See similar books…

Genres

Science

2,270 users

Philosophy

1,817 users

Nonfiction

938 users

History

645 users

Sociology

116 users

Science > History Of Science

89 users

Classics

77 users

Science > Physics

66 users

Academic

52 users

Philosophy > Theory

46 users

See top shelves…

About Thomas S. Kuhn

Thomas S. Kuhn

473 followers

American historian and philosopher of science, a leading contributor to the change of focus in the philosophy and sociology of science in the 1960s. Thomas Samuel Kuhn was born in Cincinnati, Ohio. He received a doctorate in theoretical physics from Harvard University in 1949. But he later shifted his interest to the history and philosophy of science, which he taught at Harvard, the University of ...more

Books by Thomas S. Kuhn

The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought

The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change

The Road since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970-1993, with an Autobiographical Interview

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, the Copernican Revolution

Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912

More…

100 Years of Popular Books on Goodreads

This is a fun one: For the collection below, we decided to take a long-arc overview and try to identify the most popular books published over...

Trivia About The Structure of ...

1 trivia question

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The Structure of ...

“Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like” — 54 likes

“Truth emerges more readily from error than from confusion.” — 39 likes

More quotes…

See a Problem?

Preview — The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Thomas S. Kuhn

Books by Thomas S. Kuhn

Related Articles

Trivia About The Structure of ...

Quotes from The Structure of ...

See a Problem?

Preview — The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Get A Copy

Friend Reviews

Reader Q&A

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topicDiscuss This Book

Readers also enjoyed

Genres

About Thomas S. Kuhn

Books by Thomas S. Kuhn

Related Articles

Trivia About The Structure of ...

Quotes from The Structure of ...

new topic
Discuss This Book