Format: PaperbackChange
Price:$8.52+ Free shipping with Amazon Prime
Top positive review
108 people found this helpful
5.0 out of 5 starsA classic that is still very much worth reading
ByWayne P.on June 16, 2015
First, let me state the obvious - since Kuhn is talking about the philosophy of science, this is not light reading. That said, this book is as relevant as it was when it was first published - perhaps more so. Kuhn makes a well-reasoned argument that science is not an objective search for "truth," as many people believe. Instead, "normal science" is a problem solving endeavor, solving known problems by known methods. Science only changes the rules by which it operates (its "paradigm" - that over-used and often misused term in contemporary language) only when the current paradigm causes more problems than it solves. This is the real answer to any from any field who say, "The science is settled. There is no room for discussion." Those who make that statement need to re-read Kuhn and come to grips with the reality that all knowledge is inevitably socially constructed. If you read this in graduate school, it is worth revisiting. If you have never read it and you are ready for some deep thinking, dive in. You will find your horizons expanded, and that is a good thing.
Top critical review
One person found this helpful
3.0 out of 5 starsI like when he went in to the examples of different ...
ByCirstie A Nobleon May 19, 2018
This is not a book that can be read leisurely. It takes full concentration, and to be honest, I’m not sure that I caught everything. What I did catch about the theory of paradigm change and scientific revolutions was interesting. I like when he went in to the examples of different aspects of scientific revolutions in history (perhaps because those were the only concrete things he talked about). I understand that the successive steps that lead to scientific revolution and paradigm change.
What I don’t understand is the relevancy. I know that he mentions how scientific textbooks present the history of a science as linear and building towards and end goal. He mentions that there probably is no end-goal—no final, perfect truth. Does this matter to a scientist, solving “normal” science puzzles? (I guess that’s an unfair question to ask anything involving philosophy.) I wish I could have read this when it came out, and what Kuhn was claiming was revolutionary itself.
What I don’t understand is the relevancy. I know that he mentions how scientific textbooks present the history of a science as linear and building towards and end goal. He mentions that there probably is no end-goal—no final, perfect truth. Does this matter to a scientist, solving “normal” science puzzles? (I guess that’s an unfair question to ask anything involving philosophy.) I wish I could have read this when it came out, and what Kuhn was claiming was revolutionary itself.
Search
Sort by
Top rated
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
ByWayne P.on June 16, 2015
First, let me state the obvious - since Kuhn is talking about the philosophy of science, this is not light reading. That said, this book is as relevant as it was when it was first published - perhaps more so. Kuhn makes a well-reasoned argument that science is not an objective search for "truth," as many people believe. Instead, "normal science" is a problem solving endeavor, solving known problems by known methods. Science only changes the rules by which it operates (its "paradigm" - that over-used and often misused term in contemporary language) only when the current paradigm causes more problems than it solves. This is the real answer to any from any field who say, "The science is settled. There is no room for discussion." Those who make that statement need to re-read Kuhn and come to grips with the reality that all knowledge is inevitably socially constructed. If you read this in graduate school, it is worth revisiting. If you have never read it and you are ready for some deep thinking, dive in. You will find your horizons expanded, and that is a good thing.
108 people found this helpful
Helpful
Not Helpful
5.0 out of 5 starsReview of the book titled:" The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by IJAZ DURRANI
ByIjaz Durranion April 11, 2015
I found Thomas Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" very much a test to get past. Ordinarily, if a book doesn't keep my attention, or I think that it hard to peruse after the initial couple of pages, I surrender. Then again, I was dead set to endure this book, particularly given that the Times Literary supplement once portrayed it as one of "The Hundred Most Influential Books Since the Second World War".
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", initially printed in 1962, is an examination of the historical backdrop of science. At the time of its circulation, it unsettled a couple of plumes, and keeps on doing as such today. In this book, Kuhn challenges the regular view that experimental advancement happens by the amassing of learning, prompting the improvement of acknowledged truths and hypotheses. He contends for a model whereby times of "ordinary science" are hindered by times of progressive science. It is amid such times of transformation that the advancement of experimental hypothesis happens. Kuhn portends that a standard transformation happens, whereby the tenets of examination and the bearing of exploration change, and new inquiries are asked of past information.
One sample that Thomas Kuhn utilizes as a part of his book is the Copernican Revolution. This alludes to the ideal model transformation from the Ptolemaic model of the sky, which proposed the Earth at the middle of the world, towards the heliocentric model with the Sun at the core of our Solar System. While Copernicus initially set forward this model, it was just until Galileo presented his speculations concerning movement that the heliocentric model turned into an acknowledged reality.
I wouldn't prescribe this book for the normal reader : its truly a scholastic book and there is a great deal to get your head around. By and by, I discovered this an extremely troublesome book to peruse; notwithstanding, it did get me contemplating experimental exploration and how we go about it. It is a book I accept I will return to every now and then and increase a tad bit more information every time I do. I think it would be perfect for a scientist who has an enthusiasm for logic and/or history. IJAZ DURRANI
"The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", initially printed in 1962, is an examination of the historical backdrop of science. At the time of its circulation, it unsettled a couple of plumes, and keeps on doing as such today. In this book, Kuhn challenges the regular view that experimental advancement happens by the amassing of learning, prompting the improvement of acknowledged truths and hypotheses. He contends for a model whereby times of "ordinary science" are hindered by times of progressive science. It is amid such times of transformation that the advancement of experimental hypothesis happens. Kuhn portends that a standard transformation happens, whereby the tenets of examination and the bearing of exploration change, and new inquiries are asked of past information.
One sample that Thomas Kuhn utilizes as a part of his book is the Copernican Revolution. This alludes to the ideal model transformation from the Ptolemaic model of the sky, which proposed the Earth at the middle of the world, towards the heliocentric model with the Sun at the core of our Solar System. While Copernicus initially set forward this model, it was just until Galileo presented his speculations concerning movement that the heliocentric model turned into an acknowledged reality.
I wouldn't prescribe this book for the normal reader : its truly a scholastic book and there is a great deal to get your head around. By and by, I discovered this an extremely troublesome book to peruse; notwithstanding, it did get me contemplating experimental exploration and how we go about it. It is a book I accept I will return to every now and then and increase a tad bit more information every time I do. I think it would be perfect for a scientist who has an enthusiasm for logic and/or history. IJAZ DURRANI
5.0 out of 5 starsHistorically, scientific progress has often involved abandoning or reconceptualizing previous ideas and observations.
ByDaniel Won December 5, 2017
Science is not a purely additive process. New facts and theories are not simply added to the pile of existing ones. New knowledge and understanding often requires abandoning or drastically reconceiving old theories and observations. Kuhn explores this in great detail, and I found it fascinating and insightful.
For example, prior to the invention of the telescope, the celestial sphere was viewed as fundamentally different from the earthly sphere. But a simple look at the moon in Galileo's telescope reveals it to be a body that is very similar to the Earth. It has mountains which cast shadows as the light moves across them, and so on.
The "moon" must now be be viewed as a rather different concept, and this new conception is invoked every time one looks at it. This new "paradigm" affects other observations, such as those of Jupiter and Saturn. They are not pure, static points of light like stars, and some color and a circular shape can be see with the new telescope. Must they be bodies like that of the Moon or Earth as well?
In the book, as Kuhn presents his analysis, it seems we are also taking a deep look at epistemology, and the subtleties and differences between how something is perceived and how it is conceived. Grounded in the historical narrative of scientific advancement, I found this investigation of those difficult and elusive topics to be more enlightening than usual.
I believe that some criticize Kuhn for how sharp and discontinuous he describes his paradigm shifts to be (although I haven't looked at this closely yet, I may be mistaken). For me, this was not a main point. I enjoyed his detailed analysis of how paradigms change in general, and why this is a more accurate description of how science progresses, compared to additive models.
For example, prior to the invention of the telescope, the celestial sphere was viewed as fundamentally different from the earthly sphere. But a simple look at the moon in Galileo's telescope reveals it to be a body that is very similar to the Earth. It has mountains which cast shadows as the light moves across them, and so on.
The "moon" must now be be viewed as a rather different concept, and this new conception is invoked every time one looks at it. This new "paradigm" affects other observations, such as those of Jupiter and Saturn. They are not pure, static points of light like stars, and some color and a circular shape can be see with the new telescope. Must they be bodies like that of the Moon or Earth as well?
In the book, as Kuhn presents his analysis, it seems we are also taking a deep look at epistemology, and the subtleties and differences between how something is perceived and how it is conceived. Grounded in the historical narrative of scientific advancement, I found this investigation of those difficult and elusive topics to be more enlightening than usual.
I believe that some criticize Kuhn for how sharp and discontinuous he describes his paradigm shifts to be (although I haven't looked at this closely yet, I may be mistaken). For me, this was not a main point. I enjoyed his detailed analysis of how paradigms change in general, and why this is a more accurate description of how science progresses, compared to additive models.
ByCirstie A Nobleon May 19, 2018
This is not a book that can be read leisurely. It takes full concentration, and to be honest, I’m not sure that I caught everything. What I did catch about the theory of paradigm change and scientific revolutions was interesting. I like when he went in to the examples of different aspects of scientific revolutions in history (perhaps because those were the only concrete things he talked about). I understand that the successive steps that lead to scientific revolution and paradigm change.
What I don’t understand is the relevancy. I know that he mentions how scientific textbooks present the history of a science as linear and building towards and end goal. He mentions that there probably is no end-goal—no final, perfect truth. Does this matter to a scientist, solving “normal” science puzzles? (I guess that’s an unfair question to ask anything involving philosophy.) I wish I could have read this when it came out, and what Kuhn was claiming was revolutionary itself.
What I don’t understand is the relevancy. I know that he mentions how scientific textbooks present the history of a science as linear and building towards and end goal. He mentions that there probably is no end-goal—no final, perfect truth. Does this matter to a scientist, solving “normal” science puzzles? (I guess that’s an unfair question to ask anything involving philosophy.) I wish I could have read this when it came out, and what Kuhn was claiming was revolutionary itself.
ByJ. Edgar Mihelic, MBAon February 18, 2018
There are a lot of concepts that come from books that have passed into the public domain of knowledge so you never think about where they came from. The Kuhnian concept of the Paradigm Shift is one of those in the water so much that we don't really even think about the water we're drinking and then we take it for granted. We're far enough along that the original idea may have been groundbreaking at the time (even though Kuhn didn't get tenure at first) but has become accepted to be part of life. Like reading a whole book on how the sky is blue. Of course it's blue. I knew that as a child. But someone had to first define sky and blue before we could put these together.
5.0 out of 5 starsI am a senior in high school who was recommended this book and I have to say it has ...
ByAmazon Customeron December 3, 2016
This book is the a must read for any one who is entering academia or any field that requires thought at all. This book may be merely about science, but its implications are both immediately evident and far reaching. I am a senior in high school who was recommended this book and I have to say it has completely changed my world view. Aside from the thesis, the writing is quite entertaining. Read this book no matter what it will not let you down.
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is obviously a seminal text and hardly needs a recommendation. Describing scientific progress as the result of changing paradigms, the theory has itself become a paradigm of the sciences. I even found that the distinction between normal scientific progress and scientific revolutions helped me understand the kind of work I do as a scientist in a corporate setting.
Many critics have noted that the book seems to draw heavily on examples from chemistry and physics. The applicability of the theory to the social and biological sciences is less convincing.
The one original criticism I would add is that, despite disagreeing with inductivism, Kuhn follows an inductive method in elaborating his theory. He cites example after example of the applicability of his account but never seems to see the value of falsification. Wouldn’t the theory be stronger if it was seen to be unfalsifiable by examples from many different sciences instead of providing evidence that it, many instances, it is very convincing?
The inductive method of argument is natural to human beings and, in my opinion, appropriate in certain areas. To use it to propose a theory of science is, however, regrettable. Enumerating example after example of Kuhnian scientific revolutions is not proof that his theory is universally applicable.
But, regardless of any criticism, the theory has gained such widespread acceptance that any research scientist should encounter these ideas in their original context by reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The prose is fluid, the ideas important and the book a relatively light two hundred pages. Just do not read this uncritically. As a philosopher and historian of the scientific method Kuhn himself would ask of you the same.
Many critics have noted that the book seems to draw heavily on examples from chemistry and physics. The applicability of the theory to the social and biological sciences is less convincing.
The one original criticism I would add is that, despite disagreeing with inductivism, Kuhn follows an inductive method in elaborating his theory. He cites example after example of the applicability of his account but never seems to see the value of falsification. Wouldn’t the theory be stronger if it was seen to be unfalsifiable by examples from many different sciences instead of providing evidence that it, many instances, it is very convincing?
The inductive method of argument is natural to human beings and, in my opinion, appropriate in certain areas. To use it to propose a theory of science is, however, regrettable. Enumerating example after example of Kuhnian scientific revolutions is not proof that his theory is universally applicable.
But, regardless of any criticism, the theory has gained such widespread acceptance that any research scientist should encounter these ideas in their original context by reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The prose is fluid, the ideas important and the book a relatively light two hundred pages. Just do not read this uncritically. As a philosopher and historian of the scientific method Kuhn himself would ask of you the same.
ByLatinaon November 15, 2015
A most read book if you are interested in the history of science. Kuhn develops the concept of paradigmatic shift to explain new conceptual framework of observing the natural physical world due to revolutionary findings. The book was edited after Kuhn's dead to celebrate its 50th anniversary. As a social scientist, I find Kuhn's theoretical explanation for explaining changes in the natural sciences very useful to explain shifts in how societies organize themselves in Republics with Constitutions, separated from religions. Democracy and confessional states are not compatible.
ByBob & Sarah Hazenon June 3, 2018
A slow read but a classic book that describes the troubles and challenges of various scientific paradigms that met their demise due to a combination of internal deficiencies, new technologies, and new evidences (e.g., the telescope, the discovery of DNA, et al.). Kuhn describes the pattern of quite varied scientific paradigms that were at first resisted and then eventually accepted, such as the Copernican theory of planetary motion, Newton's gravitational physics, the oxygen theory of combustion, Einstein's theory of relativity, and the continental drift theory. Quite unintentionally, Kuhn's analysis also applies to the contemporary paradigm of particles-to-people evolution with its many difficulties, challenges, and troubles (which most are acutely unaware of), making it a prime candidate for another revolution in science.
ByPercy Dovetonsilson August 10, 2015
Mr Kuhn well establishes what brings about revolutions in thought, how they are fought against, who fights against them and how they ultimately succeed if proven true. The mechanisms of this change works on major topics such as Newtons Laws as well on the minute detail of any detail such as the orientation of the eye pupil in hunters versus prey which was recently in the news. It matters not the size of the revolution, it will work the same way.
Any student working on a Masters or PhD in any science ought to read this book for background.
Any student working on a Masters or PhD in any science ought to read this book for background.
There's a problem loading this menu right now.
Get fast, free shipping with Amazon Prime
Prime members enjoy FREE Two-Day Shipping and exclusive access to music, movies, TV shows, original audio series, and Kindle books.
|
Your recently viewed items and featured recommendations
After viewing product detail pages, look here to find an easy way to navigate back to pages you are interested in.
Back to top
Get to Know Us
Make Money with Us
Amazon Payment Products
- Conditions of Use
- Privacy Notice
- Interest-Based Ads
- © 1996-2018, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates
