Thomas S.

Kuhn

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Reviewed by David Freer

Science is a human endeavor built upon paradigms broken by revolutions instead of an

inexorable march towards absolute truth. Observation occurs within the framework of a

paradigm. Most scientists work as caretakers, mopping up and dealing with details of a

paradigm. Every so often, however, a young scientist breaks with convention; the result

is a scientific revolution. From the present, Kuhn discusses Einstein, Maxwell, Newton,

and Aristotle, among others. Such scientific breakthroughs from these men may produce

more accurate measurements although they are not usually accepted by the rest of the

scientific community immediately. Science moves by evolution and revolution; at its

heart it is a human endeavor with fits and stops. The idea of a continuous road to Truth

must be rejected; we are solving puzzles by working within or around a framework.

Our language shapes the nature of scientific debate, according to Kuhn. Consider the

question, “Who discovered Oxygen?” The answer depends on what is meant by oxygen!

Complicated scientific history is reduced to a single piece of trivia. Furthermore,

textbooks are written to propagate the existing paradigm with little explanation of the

process. After the community of scientists agrees on a paradigm, it takes youthful

exuberance of the slightly uninitiated to create a revolution. Though Kuhn is no fan of an

educational system which immerses students in textbooks, he does admit to its

effectiveness (p. 165).

Observation and experience are not alone for science. They are necessary elements but it

empirical evidence for scientists is, to a certain extent, filtered by beliefs from the

community in which they were initiated (p. 4). Scientists examine observations

according to an accepted framework. This is normal science. As time progresses more

and more scientific fields are incomprehensible to the uninitiated layman. The current

scholarship is evaluated by communities of scientists who are accepting of the current

paradigm.

Newton’s theory ‘worked’ for the time and to a certain extent, it still does. Einstein’s

work built on the theory yet at the same time revolutionized the way we view the

universe. The theory ‘works’ and is currently well accepted. Yet there are still anomalies

in the universe which are unexplained by today’s theories. We can surmise changes to

occur. Yet it seems to be in our nature to want to reject the novel as Kuhn interprets the

results of the experiment with the anomalous playing cards (p. 64).

Many find Darwin’s theory anomalous to what is taught in the Bible. Consider the

current controversy caused by supporters of ‘Intelligent Design’ who believe evolution is

just a theory and accordingly stickers should be placed on biology textbooks. In a recent

piece about the debate in the New York Magazine, Kurt Anderson paraphrases Kuhn, “In

science, there is no such thing as fixed, irrefutable truth.”1 The Structure of Scientific

Revolutions does not presume that all science or knowledge is equal. A ‘faith-based’

approach does not deserve equal time with an approach based on trial and error in his
1
http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/columns/imperialcity/14721/
estimation. Kuhn believes that science requires observation and the ability to solve

problems and must be accepted by the prevailing group. Since evolution is accepted by

most individuals in the biological sciences there is no reason for members outside the

community to dictate what theories are taught. “Scientific knowledge, like language, is

intrinsically the common property of a group or nothing else at all. (p. 210)” To

understand the theory of evolution, Kuhn seems to be saying, one must know the

biologists who use the theory.

Scientists, as mentioned before, measure their progress by the ability to solve problems.

However, paradigms are not accepted or rejected on the measure of problem solving

alone. There are two other important qualifications. The new paradigm must “resolve

some outstanding and generally recognized problem that can be met in no other way (p.

169).” Also the new paradigm must in some way build on the previous paradigm.

However new paradigms are not like building a mound of earth with each successive load

adding to the finished product. The new model may be “incommensurable” with the past

(p. 103).

Kuhn ends with a summary of what many feel is the most isolating aspect of Darwin’s

theory: there is no goal. Humans are not the pinnacle of creation. Science is a product of

man but man is not helpless to understand the world around him. Paradigms are accepted

and changed but to understand how they change one must look to the scientific

community.