Paradigm shifting and all that

Review of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn

This is one of those books that are more talked about than read. It was conceived as a modest work of sociology on certain types of transition in science, those in the physical or “hard” sciences. Unfortunately, Kuhn’s conclusions have been taken as a metaphor by everyone from literary theorists to New Age devotees into heavy-duty moral and social relativism. It is a great example of how ideas can escape the control of their originators.

Kuhn wanted to look at how scientists behaved in the face of new ideas and observations that better described the underlying reality than currently accepted theory – closer to the truth, if you will – in their fields. It was intended to be strictly limited to the more provable physical sciences, which could be tested precisely against predictions.

As far as Kuhn’s intentions went, the book is a modest success, if somewhat of a pedestrian read. If you want to get into the New-Agey philosophical ramifications, you need to go to less rigorous thinkers such as Foucault and his many copiers or Fritof Kapra. You will not find them in Kuhn’s book, which I suspect would surprise many people who talk about him.

The scientists with whom I’ve worked didn’t think much of Kuhn’s book: they see it as contributing to the post-modernist argument that science is simply and exclusively a social construct. In contrast to the post-modernists, orthodox scientists argue that they are going after far deeper truths – actual descriptions of reality, be they mathematical or the historical categorizations of the Darwininists. They despise the talk of “paradigm shifting”, which they believe is built into the scientific pursuit already. I suppose they are right, though I also believe there is no question that Kuhn succeeded in capturing how they think and act in many circumstances, that is, the old school often needs to die off so that new ideas can gain the status of orthodoxy that could in turn fall one day.

I would not recommend this book to the casual reader.  It is better for academics - the “knowledge professionals” – or for serious intellectuals who will not be disappointed in (and indeed accept) its strict limits in scope.