Thomas Kuhn’s “Structure of Scientific Revolutions” (1962) gets run for its money!

By that, I mean a competing theory going head-to-head with it.

When I was in college in early to mid 1980s, I don’t remember a single mention of Kuhn’s theory. But in the ‘90s, I understand it was one of the most oft-cited works. So, some serious competition might give it traction earlier?

As one example of competition of ideas . . .

51YDhVhLLgL._AC_SY400_.jpg


Yes, the long-running debate between Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Dawkins over largely I think how big a role “punctuated equilibrium” plays in evolution — and I think this public debate and semi-feud helped get attention for the ideas of both these guys.

——

So, if you’re familiar with Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, give me a theory which could have genuinely competed with it. Please be bold and brave and risk appearing “stupid.” :)
 
Last edited:
kuhn-paradigms-and-normal-science-35-728.jpg

Most of the time is normal science.

Crisis only happens occasionally, and often it’s the younger scientists and/or those in related but different fields who take the anomalies most seriously. And no, of course they’re not well received by the establishment scientists! :openedeyewink:
 
Okay. So let’s say that as Kuhn and Lakatos are working in a liberal bourgeois sociology of knowledge style that a CIA funded tame Marxist produces an early Marxist/power oriented history. That CFTM was reading Brecht’s Galileo at the time and that science process as ideology and class struggle is formed early as an alternative. Because this is before peak structuralism it isn’t a pessimistic retreat into anarchies of methodology but a muscular statement of technoscience. Galileo and Manhattan become central points of argument.

Why would this be popularised apart from attacks on Soviet Science? Maybe have a manned Apollo failure in launch.
 
F E Y E R A B E N D
Thanks for the lead, but I am not yet real impressed with Paul Feyerabend. For example . . .
https://web.calpoly.edu/~fotoole/321.1/feyer.html

" . . . When Copernicus introduced a new view of the universe, he did not consult scientific predecessors, he consulted a crazy Pythagorean such as Philolaos. He adopted his ideas and he maintained them in the face of all sound rules of scientific method. Mechanics and optics owe a lot to artisans, medicine to midwives and witches. . . "
Just seems like he could have done more with it.
 
. . that a CIA funded tame Marxist . .
Exotic

But I bet we did do this during the cold war! Both to just screw with the Soviets, as well as to place our bets on saner elements, etc, etc. As well as, very importantly, to develop and keep intelligence assets.
 
Last edited:
Top