Book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 
Author: Thomas S.Kuhn
(1922-96)
Year of first Publication: 1962 | Last Location: 5349
Total Reading Days: 7 (Between 15/03/16 - 22/03/16)
Total Reading Hours: ~31 hours 28 min | Total Sessions: ~30
Rating: 10/10
Purpose of reading: I have hesitated to read books which are analysis rather than raw data. It is somewhat a scary dark area into which I didn't go to see my reasoning for this behaviour. Then I felt, I might not have all experiences to process and analyse, why shall I not collaborate with others? I agree if I have all the data and if I am not able to analyse, that is a problem of mine. But, I may not have all the data to process and analyse to achieve my goal. So, for faster processing, I can collaborate with others, then I started reading this book.
The main purpose of reading this book is to understand, and compare with mine, the patterns which Kuhn has seen in the history of science. This all I aimed to benefit me in eliminating "animal behaviour" of mine in the path of acquiring knowledge. I thank +Dr. Cheriyan Alexander for introducing me Kuhn.
Review: Kuhn zooms out the history picture moderately and observes the activities of science. I didn't see the picture in this vantage before, now I understand different layers in which the same picture can be seen. Kuhn explains that the number of theories at the start, to explain a particular concept, say optics, will be a great number, but non of them will be explaining wide range of phenomenon or will not be worth for next generation to continue upon. Then, combining all these initial theories, as happened in Optics, Newton made a theory, upon which next generation trusted to build on. Kuhn calls, as I see, the theories which have got a stable base for the acceptance of next generation to continue on, as "Paradigm." Kuhn explains the same with Electricity, where Franklin is the "generalizer"; with Chemistry, where Lavoisier is the "generalizer"; and with old astronomy, where Copernicus is the "generalizer." Then Kuhn says the next generation builds on this generality or paradigm, without trying to create there own mostly. Students will be trained in the paradigms, as we are now, to join the like minded in the respective paradigm scientific community. Then, the single theory builds on without any other many theories. This is really amazing and sad to observe that only one theory, without any other approaching theory, will be practised by the most entire generation of scientific community. This is the major picture of this book, which I have gained, and which gave me shock.
The textbooks do not contain any historical track, but gives only the generality or paradigm attained in raw form in a particular generation, which will not help one to do science (as even Ian Hacking explains in the introductory essay), but the text books ending problems is said to help one to do science. I am not yet convinced on even problems now. Kuhn later on explains the development of paradigm or attained generality--say Newtonian Mechanics, Optics, Phlogiston theory, Electricity theory--by explaining the "normal science" activity where the theory will be shaved in proper shape by doing puzzle activity, this seems somewhat similar to our previous discussion in Generality. I think the whole picture of history of science, if completely zoomed in, if I understand correctly, is entirely puzzle-solving or a search for common share in different experiences to see the pattern of generality, or to see the big pattern in the "puzzle." But Kuhn here attributes this puzzle-solving character only to normal science phase of the development of a generality or a paradigm. I must say that his seen patterns are itself a paradigm, upon which we can build on.
After explaining this phase of normal science, which he says is all what done by many, and the one which flows easily for the discovery ship is the paradigm, which will take to all the different places. Then the paradigm is said to reach a point where it may not explain certain observed phenomenon. So, another new theory from the scratch comes (?) on and replaces the old one, like that of Einstein's. This overthrow of an established paradigm by a new one is described as a revolution. Then the new paradigm is said to have same pattern of normal science until new revolution.
My only sadness is the direct practising of paradigm without trying to understand its origin and without trying out different possibilities along the route. If everyone tries to reach the root of theory and tries different possible ways of theory, we will have many theories and a best community of science than one obtained from present raw text-books.
Kuhn explains everything as discovery, he doesn't, as I see, seem to credit either Newton or Einstein, for their theories, except for their ability of generalisation, as he explains the concepts created to have come from generalities attained from many years.
Different people will extract different values from this book, depending on their experience, and the one above by me is one of different kinds, as even Ian Hacking explains his own in the introductory essay of this book. Ian Hacking describes this book to be of great value but to have neglected structural development of Biology. Ian traces the origin of structure of revolution to Immanuel Kant.
While the title of this book is given as the structure of revolutions, I found greater than just the structure of revolutions, as I saw revolution to be a part of entire science process, and it is this entire science process whose structure is made naked.
The lines which I like the most from the book are: "the member of a mature scientific community is, like the typical character of Orwell's 1984, the victim of a history rewritten by the powers that be."
This book, I feel, should be read by everyone to understand their position in their respective scientific career.
Author: Thomas S.Kuhn
(1922-96) Year of first Publication: 1962 | Last Location: 5349
Total Reading Days: 7 (Between 15/03/16 - 22/03/16)
Total Reading Hours: ~31 hours 28 min | Total Sessions: ~30
Rating: 10/10
Purpose of reading: I have hesitated to read books which are analysis rather than raw data. It is somewhat a scary dark area into which I didn't go to see my reasoning for this behaviour. Then I felt, I might not have all experiences to process and analyse, why shall I not collaborate with others? I agree if I have all the data and if I am not able to analyse, that is a problem of mine. But, I may not have all the data to process and analyse to achieve my goal. So, for faster processing, I can collaborate with others, then I started reading this book.
The main purpose of reading this book is to understand, and compare with mine, the patterns which Kuhn has seen in the history of science. This all I aimed to benefit me in eliminating "animal behaviour" of mine in the path of acquiring knowledge. I thank +Dr. Cheriyan Alexander for introducing me Kuhn.
Review: Kuhn zooms out the history picture moderately and observes the activities of science. I didn't see the picture in this vantage before, now I understand different layers in which the same picture can be seen. Kuhn explains that the number of theories at the start, to explain a particular concept, say optics, will be a great number, but non of them will be explaining wide range of phenomenon or will not be worth for next generation to continue upon. Then, combining all these initial theories, as happened in Optics, Newton made a theory, upon which next generation trusted to build on. Kuhn calls, as I see, the theories which have got a stable base for the acceptance of next generation to continue on, as "Paradigm." Kuhn explains the same with Electricity, where Franklin is the "generalizer"; with Chemistry, where Lavoisier is the "generalizer"; and with old astronomy, where Copernicus is the "generalizer." Then Kuhn says the next generation builds on this generality or paradigm, without trying to create there own mostly. Students will be trained in the paradigms, as we are now, to join the like minded in the respective paradigm scientific community. Then, the single theory builds on without any other many theories. This is really amazing and sad to observe that only one theory, without any other approaching theory, will be practised by the most entire generation of scientific community. This is the major picture of this book, which I have gained, and which gave me shock.
The textbooks do not contain any historical track, but gives only the generality or paradigm attained in raw form in a particular generation, which will not help one to do science (as even Ian Hacking explains in the introductory essay), but the text books ending problems is said to help one to do science. I am not yet convinced on even problems now. Kuhn later on explains the development of paradigm or attained generality--say Newtonian Mechanics, Optics, Phlogiston theory, Electricity theory--by explaining the "normal science" activity where the theory will be shaved in proper shape by doing puzzle activity, this seems somewhat similar to our previous discussion in Generality. I think the whole picture of history of science, if completely zoomed in, if I understand correctly, is entirely puzzle-solving or a search for common share in different experiences to see the pattern of generality, or to see the big pattern in the "puzzle." But Kuhn here attributes this puzzle-solving character only to normal science phase of the development of a generality or a paradigm. I must say that his seen patterns are itself a paradigm, upon which we can build on.
After explaining this phase of normal science, which he says is all what done by many, and the one which flows easily for the discovery ship is the paradigm, which will take to all the different places. Then the paradigm is said to reach a point where it may not explain certain observed phenomenon. So, another new theory from the scratch comes (?) on and replaces the old one, like that of Einstein's. This overthrow of an established paradigm by a new one is described as a revolution. Then the new paradigm is said to have same pattern of normal science until new revolution.
My only sadness is the direct practising of paradigm without trying to understand its origin and without trying out different possibilities along the route. If everyone tries to reach the root of theory and tries different possible ways of theory, we will have many theories and a best community of science than one obtained from present raw text-books.
Kuhn explains everything as discovery, he doesn't, as I see, seem to credit either Newton or Einstein, for their theories, except for their ability of generalisation, as he explains the concepts created to have come from generalities attained from many years.
Different people will extract different values from this book, depending on their experience, and the one above by me is one of different kinds, as even Ian Hacking explains his own in the introductory essay of this book. Ian Hacking describes this book to be of great value but to have neglected structural development of Biology. Ian traces the origin of structure of revolution to Immanuel Kant.
While the title of this book is given as the structure of revolutions, I found greater than just the structure of revolutions, as I saw revolution to be a part of entire science process, and it is this entire science process whose structure is made naked.
The lines which I like the most from the book are: "the member of a mature scientific community is, like the typical character of Orwell's 1984, the victim of a history rewritten by the powers that be."
This book, I feel, should be read by everyone to understand their position in their respective scientific career.
Comments
Post a Comment