Amazon.com
There's a "Frank & Ernest" comic strip showing a chick breaking out of its shell, looking around, and saying, "Oh, wow! Paradigm shift!" Blame the late Thomas Kuhn. Few indeed are the philosophers or historians influential enough to make it into the funny papers, but Kuhn is one.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is indeed a paradigmatic work in the history of science. Kuhn's use of terms such as "paradigm shift" and "normal science," his ideas of how scientists move from disdain through doubt to acceptance of a new theory, his stress on social and psychological factors in science--all have had profound effects on historians, scientists, philosophers, critics, writers, business gurus, and even the cartoonist in the street.

Some scientists (such as Steven Weinberg and Ernst Mayr) are profoundly irritated by Kuhn, especially by the doubts he casts--or the wayhis work has been used to cast doubt--on the idea of scientific progress. Yet it has been said that the acceptance of plate tectonics in the 1960s, for instance, was sped by geologists' reluctance to be on the downside of a paradigm shift. Even Weinberg has said that "Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science." As one of Kuhn's obituaries noted, "We all live in a post-Kuhnian age." --Mary Ellen Curtin Book Description

Customer Reviews (112)

Most highly overrated book in philosophy?
It seems that most people think the philosophy of science begins and ends with Kuhn.Most of these people have never read the book, even fewer have read it critically, and fewer still are familiar with any significant amount of science or its philosophy beyond The Book.

It was greedily latched onto by many mainly because it is wrongly perceived as having somehow placed science on the same (presumptive) level of subjectivity as non-scientific intellectual endeavors like literary criticism.

Thus, while there is merit in the book the uses to which it has been put are execrable.In practice it has done nothing more for society than make people feel good about the fact that they don't understand science and mathematics even to the point of avoiding truly dangerous ignorance.

As with philosophy of science in general (which I love and respect), The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was and is largely ignored by those actually _doing_ science.Without Kuhn's assurance that they're making progress, scientists somehow manage to continue bringing us things like the human genome, cures and treatments for diseases you've never heard of, broadband internet, laser surgery, memory-foam matresses, HDTV, etc.

Science works.It is up to philosophers to explain why and lend helpful analysis and clarity.If philosophers can't explain why Science works, then it is Philosophy that has failed, not Science.

It would be redundant for me to recap the specific criticisms of Kuhn ably covered by other reviewers such as "Delendus est Griffinus", not to mention most of the top philosophers and scientists in the last 35 years.

To sum up: The Stucture of Scientific Revolutions does not claim what most people think it claims.The boldest of the book's claims are dubious, fallacious and/or based on factually incorrect or selective analyses of history.The remainder is an interesting and perhaps useful corrective to overly simplistic analyses of the process and history of science.The book does _not_ constitute a "paradigm shift" in thinking about or practicing science.

Personally, I think it will be largely an historical footnote in another decade or two.To some extent it already is, except to those operating _outside_ the mainstream of both science and the philosophy of science.

You don't need to read this book, but please, don't trust me!

Instead, read an anthology like Philosophy of Science: The Central Issues.You'll find all the Kuhn you need there, along with a more realistic idea of the spectrum of thinking in the philosophy of science.In that book Kuhn makes up ~60 of 1379 pages, which is on the order that the importance and "revolutionary" impact of his ideas deserve.

Review
It is an interesting book that stretches the thought about how science evolves and the nature of that evolution/revolution.Thought provoking.Stimulating.A good thought framing piece to set a context around scientific exploration.

Book review
The best book if one wants to learn about the history of science and theory. A difficult read but worth every sentence. Profound and foundational. Must read for all doctoral students!!

Structur of Scientific Revolutions
Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" is a must read for anyone studying the events at which a scientific theory no longer answers all the new observations -- Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's of gravity are often cited as classical examples -- and a new set of paradigms is developed. Unfortunately I lost the copy I had when taking a course in History of Science, am glad that it's still in print and to have it back in my library.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions
This book is a must read for every college freshman.It should be required for entrance to any technical or scientific discipline.

Thomas Kuhn's seminal book on the evolution of knowledge and how new ideas are conceived, developed, and finally accepted. I had seen it referenced in many books and finally decided to read ir for myself.

It is not an easy read but put in the effort and you will reap a great reward. ... Read more

Amazon.com
It is possible that no book written in the last 50 years has had an influence as profound and far-reaching as Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn's argument that scientific knowledge does not develop cumulatively, but rather proceeds by a series of "paradigm shifts," captivated not only philosophers of science, but scholars in a wide range of academic disciplines. The Road Since Structure is a follow-up to his landmark work and a look at Kuhn's theory since the book's original publication in 1962.

In keeping with Kuhn's wishes (he died in 1996), editors James Conant and John Haugeland organized The Road Since Structure to include 11 philosophical essays written since 1970. In the first part of the book, Kuhn spells out his theory as it developed in the 1980s and 1990s; in the second part, he replies to a number of criticisms and misreadings. The third section is a fascinating interview with Kuhn conducted less than a year before he died. For general interest readers, the lengthy interview--in which Kuhn candidly and engagingly discusses the trials and tribulations of his life and philosophical career--will probably be the most interesting part of the book. For those attuned to Kuhn's controversial work, The Road Since Structure is an indispensable aid for understanding his theory as it developed and for appreciating the full force of his replies to a host of critical objections. As always, Kuhn's clarity and fluid prose render accessible a field fraught with opaque writing. --Eric de Place Book Description

Customer Reviews (5)

Kuhn's missing link
This posthumously published book is a collection of papers published between 1970 and 1993 together with a transcript of an autobiographical interview given by Kuhn in 1995, a year before his death.The book also contains a complete bibliography of his works.

Most of the important contributing philosophers of science in the twentieth century formed their views by reflection on the great scientific revolutions in modern physics, notably relativity theory and quantum theory.But in the first paper in this book, "What are Scientific Revolutions?" (1987), Kuhn reports that his most formative intellectual experience was his attempt in 1947 to understand the physics of Aristotle - what in his autobiography he calls his "Aristotle experience."

What distinguishes the contrast between the physics of Aristotle and Newton is the vast gulf in time, which makes their contrast quite radical in comparison to the contrast between, say, Einstein's theory and Newton's immediately preceding theory.Also the ascendancy of Newton's theory was not due to a decisive empirical test, like the eclipse experiment that decided for Einstein's theory over Newton's.It is this radical contrast between Aristotle's and Newton's physics that occasioned Kuhn's comparably radical thesis of scientific revolutions, that they are nonempirical conversions from one "paradigm" to another incommensurably different one.

When Kuhn set forth his thesis of scientific revolutions in 1962 in his famous book titled The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, the book was not welcomed by philosophers of science, who expected and demanded a coherent philosophy of language and a linguistic analysis for the Kuhnian thesis.The papers in Road Since Structure are in large part the fossil record of Kuhn's successive and unsuccessful attempts to evolve his missing link between history of science and philosophy of science.The papers show his groping, eclectic, and somewhat naive efforts at philosophy of language by a scholar who was firstly a historian of science.

Readers interested on my further comments on Kuhn are invited to read my book titled History of Twentieth-Century Philosophy of Science or Google my web site philsci for free downloads of my book by chapter - and also to read my other book reviews in this Amazon web site.

Thomas J. Hickey

Good Collection
Unless you're a research scientist or have found yourself wrapped up in the miniscule debates over Kuhn's writings ( eg. "What exactly IS a paradigm, perfesser?"), this book is delightful! Of particular interest are the two essays "What Are Scientific Revolutions?" and "The Trouble With The Historical Philosophy of Science." Some of this can be found in "The Essential Tension" as he was always repeating himself to different audiences.

Did Kuhn ever recover from 'Structure'?
As with (to a lesser extent) Feyerabend, Kuhn wrote his contreversial opus in the mid 60's. I think it's safe to say that anything hinting at anti-authoritarianism, as it seemed to do on the surface, was begging to be misunderstood. Honestly, after 'paradigm shift' became a bastardized slogan for everything from class-struggle to new-age revelations through meditation, I'm not sure Thomas Kuhn ever recovered from this world-wide misunderstanding. What I read in "The Road Since Structure" corroborates that as we find an author that constantly needs to clarify, "This is what I'm saying. This is what I'm not saying. Now that we're clear, let me repeat myself!"

First, as anyone who's read "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" knows, Kuhn has no talent for clear writing. Nothing's changed since. These essays, although more concise and to the point (perhaps that's Kuhn having learned his lesson) are still difficult reads. The first section, I think, is the book's 'payoff'. It is here that he reiterates, clarifies and expands on what is and is not scientific revolution, incommensurability and paradigm. Two essays in particular, "What are Scientific Revolutions?" and "The Road Since Structure" are worth the price of the book alone.

The second section consists of replies to Kuhns many and in an ideological sense, far ranging critics. Most of these papers were written for symposia and are difficult in the sense of listening to only one end of a phone dialogue. As he is generally responding to papers of others, without access to those papers, it is akward reading to say the least. Still, for those of us scientific philosophy nuts, the essays "Reflections on My Critics" (part of a symposium featuring Lakatos, Popper and Feyerabend amongst others) and "The Natural and the Human Sciences" are excellent illucidations of Kuhns thought.

Honestly, the interview, I didn't like. Much of it is Thomas Kuhns history and as for the reviewer below that bemoans a self-absorbed Kuhn talking about himself and his "intellectual project", I'm not sure what else you should expect from an interview of a philosopher. Interviewers like to ask about the interviewee and philosopher's like to talk about what they work on. Honestly though, if you are at all familiar with Kuhns life, this interview offers little that you didn't already know.

An interesting look at a self-absorbed life
Having just finished Steve Fuller's decimation of Kuhn's significance, I come away much less impressed with this book. I immediately noticed that Fuller's claim that Kuhn was beholden to Harvard President James Bryant Conant seems to continue after the grave, since the editor of this set of papers and interviews is none other than Conant's grandson! But putting that aside (sheer coincidence perhaps?), the final interview shows just how self-absorbed Kuhn was. Considering what was going on in the larger world around him, he seemed forever preoccupied by a very private intellectual project that never attracted the attention that buzzwords like "paradigm" did. Fuller read this interview in the original obscure Greek philosophy journal where it appeared, and makes some sharp observations about Kuhn's tendency to deny all influences -- including highly publicized ones like Ludwik Fleck.This is not to say that Kuhn's intellectual project wasn't interesting, but it's amazing just how unwilling he remained to deal with the way his work was used. Lucky for him, he was professionally ensconced in the Ivy League and so never really had to bother much with what the sub-Ivy intellectuals thought.

What made Kuhn tick, and more
There are three parts to this book:essays Kuhn wrote to respond to the most substantial criticisms of THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS, essays that extend and elaborate on his thinking since STRUCTURE, and, most remarkable, a very long and revealing interview or discussion with three Greek philosophers of science less than a year before his death.

To me, the interview is the most interesting part of the book, mainly because it's autobiographical.I am told by people who knew him that, after the hullabaloo over STRUCTURE, Kuhn became quite reticent, at least in public, and certainly about himself.Well, reticent is the last thing he is in this interview.He speaks quite openly about his parents, his early education, his attraction to physics, his time at Harvard, his decision to move from physics to philosophy and history of science, the issues in history and philosophy of science that moved him most deeply, his opinions of colleagues.In this interview, Thomas Kuhn becomes a person, not merely an icon.It's surprising, moving, and instructive, and anyone who's ever wondered about the man who wrote THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS will find the interview, as well as the essays in this book, well worth the read.Enjoy!And wonder! ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (4)

A comment on Magellan's comments
In the last few lines of Magellan's "A few comments on the evolution of the philosophy", Thomas Kuhn was strongly criticized.This criticism perhaps originates from the same misunderstanding of human nature that produced Confusianism and Maxism.
What is brave about Kuhn is that he dared to point out the weakness of mankind.Indeed scientists eventually accept new ideas and theories because they are closer to truth as revealed by the new experimental observations and findings.But this paradigm shift can indeed be painfully long as people first try to exhaust all the means to rescue the old paradigm.Scientists should be trained to have the ethnics of merely pursuing truth and only truth.However, as human beings (shame on them), some scientists care more about their reputation and survival than about what is true.When the majority of a community is like so, the paradigm shift indeed begins as an external process, i.e., the shift is forced upon and not voluntary.

Another beautiful mind
Kuhn's ideas are almost always insightful, sometimes brilliant, though he can be challenging and somewhat dense to read. The last point is an observation rather than a criticism.Unlike some academic writers who use a lot of jargon and unnecessarily big words to sound authoritative, Kuhn is "scholarly" in the best sense -- meticulous about detail and extremely thoughtful in his explanations. There's a lot of great stuff here, just not light reading.

A collection of essays like this is especially nice because Kuhn's writings on a variety of topics can be sampled in manageable chunks of about 10 to 30 pages each.His consistent theme is how communities of scientists come to understand, test, and advance the state of knowledge in their fields of study.What makes the essays so fascinating for me is Kuhn's deft exploration of the inherent social nature of how science is done and how it moves forward.And though Kuhn is writing specifically about SCIENCE as a social endeavor, a number of the insights can be readily applied to other areas.

Finally, Kuhn's analyses, insights, and critiques carry added weight because he's not writing about science as an outsider.He started out as a scientist/practitioner and it shows in the crisp way he explains and weaves scientific examples into his writing. Well worth the effort to read!

A few comments on the evolution of the philosophy
This is a nice collection of Kuhn's essays on various topics in the history and philosophy of science, which should be of value to anyone interested in Kuhn's thought and specifically in the important theory he put forth in his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. In some ways, his approach is similar to Michael Polanyi's, so I thought I'd discuss both of them a bit here.

Writers like Kuhn and Polanyi's subjectivistic approach to science are still popular in some circles, mostly because of the west's fascination with the individual consciousness and ego and with the existential and phenomenological approaches to reality that grew out of that. While this is understandable historically I believe that this approach is still invalid, so I thought I'd say a little more about that. But that will involve my discussing some basic philosophy, so I hope you don't mind if I wax a little nerdy here. I apologize in advance as this is a long review and perhaps a little technical philosophically, but perhaps you'll find my comments on the subject informative or at least useful.

Basically, the most important concept in epistemology is the split between the philosophies of idealism and empiricism. Idealists believe that ideas about the external world are innate. Kant was the last major philosopher to articulate the classical position on this, and his influence is still being feltby contemporary neo-Kantian theories and philosophers. For example, Kant mantained that the ideas of space and time were so fundamental that they had to be built-in, innate ideas. He argued that the test of this is that if one can't imagine a universe without a certain idea, then that idea couldn't have come from external reality. While this is an interesting contention, and there is some support for it (perceptual psychologist Eleanor Gibson showed that even at 1 year of age babies can perceive depth and space very well, in her famous "visual cliff" experiments), it is unlikely that there are truly innate ideas, although there are probably innate abilities like Kant suggested, since as he pointed out, in order for the mind to be actively involved in organizing and structuring the data of the senses, this could not occur unless there were corresponding mental capabilities and constucts to match.

But getting back to the philosophy definitions, as many people know, Locke, Hume, and most of the British philosophers were empiricists; they believed that ideas come from sense data and from external reality. This philosophical split between idealism and empiricism in thinking goes all the way back to Aristotle and Plato, so if you understand what it was about, you basically understand what most of western philosophy was about since then. The one exception here is the British philosopher Berkeley, who was an extreme subjectivist, and his philosophy is known as solipsism. He actually thought that the external world only existed because we perceived it, making it an extreme form of idealism. He did this by arguing that since we ultimately only know our own minds and its consciousness and internal perceptions, that there is no real way to prove that an objective, external reality even exists. While there is some truth to this, it's obviously an extreme position, and as result of recent research over the last 30 years in the neurophysiology and biophysics of sensation and perception, as in the case of David Marr's mathematical and theoretical work and his followers, we know now just how rigorous and analytical the process of perceiving external reality actually is.

Although his work was in the area of mathematical and theoretical neurobiology, it has important implications for the entire field of mind and brain, since Marr's computational and mathematical approach to vision revolutionized the entire area of vision research, after which it was never the same. There are strong hints of this approach in the earlier work of quantitatively oriented perceptual psychologists such as Julesz and Gibson, but Marr's work takes the whole field a quantum leap further, giving it a rigorousness and mathematical elegance never before seen.

For example, to mention just a few of his important ideas, and to give you some idea of how rigorous they were, Marr's demonstrations that retinal receptive field geometry could be derived by Fourier transformation of spatial frequency sensitivity data, that edges and contours could be detected by finding zero crossings in the light gradient by taking the Laplacian or second directional derivative, that excitatory and inhibitory receptive fields could be constructed from "DOG" functions (the difference of two Gaussians), and that the visual system used a two-dimensional convolution integral with a Gaussian prefilter as an operator for bandwidth optimation on the retinal light distribution, were more powerful than anything that had been seen up to that time.

Hence, there is very little reason anymore to insist on the fundamental subjectivity of perception in the Kantian sense. It is true that there are visual illusions at the higher levels of sensory perception, but those are now regarded as special cases, and they are being shown to be explainable in terms of mathematical visual field-distortion theories of these mechanisms that can be quantified just like the basic sensory processes.

But getting back to what I was saying before, Kant's view is still popular in some circles, and actually, he was right about certain things, such as the mind having certain built-in capabilities to understand reality, as I mentioned above in the case of idealism. The linguist, Noam Chomsky, and his ideas about an innate language capability are an example of this neo-Kantian approach, actually, which has been supported by developmental studies and by studies of feral children in regard to a critical period between 6 and 8 years of age, which is required for language developement.

However, most scientists and philosophers since the early 20th century are probably either Logical Positivists or Critical Naturalists rather than Idealists or neo-Kantians in the strict sense. The problem with neo-Kantianism is that a systematic ghost of an illusion pervades even the finest specimens of this theory, since there is no strong connection to external reality anymore. Both Critical Naturalism and Logical Positivism were strongly influenced by scientific theories about reality, and Logical Positivism is really just the philosophy and analysis of scientific method and of the logic of scientific hypothesis and theories rather than traditional philosophy in the usual sense. Some of the famous Logical Positivists were people like Rudolf Carnap, A.J. Ayer, and Reichenbach, whose names many people know. Critical Naturalism does get more into traditional philosophical topics like metaphysics and ontology but again, they tend to take their ideas about reality from what science has discovered in quantum theory and cosmology and what that implies as far as figuring out the metaphysics and ontology of the real world.

Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell were two famous 20th century philosophers who were examples of the Critical Naturalism school, and both of them were mathematicians as well as philosophers. Whitehead was Russell's math professor, and in fact, they both wrote a famous work on mathematical logic, The Principia Mathematica, in which they show that the basic mathematical operations can be derived from logic.

Since we're on the subject, I thought I'd make several comments specifically on Kuhn's theory as set forth in his famous book, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn's idea qualifies as a psychohistorical explanation of the nature of scientific progress, because scientists must have already made a cognitive shift to a new mindset before acceptance of the new theory can occur.

Other people have commented on similar ideas in the works of Feyerabend, Popper, and Polanyi, so I won't repeat any of that here. What I will say, however, is that this theory, while interesting, makes as little, or as much sense, itself, as the irrational science it purports to explain.

First, Kuhn's explanation of the process seems plausible psychologically but in fact is not supported by the psychological literature itself. People change deeply held convictions and ideas not because of an external paradigm shift, but because they become convinced internally that the new idea is superior to the old. Why? Because it explains the facts better, makes more powerful predictions, or is simpler. In other words, it is a fairly logical, reasonable process. This should surprise no-one but Kuhn.

Second, Kuhn's theory ignores the innumerable scientific hypotheses, theories, and advances that displaced earlier explanations with very little or no resistance.

Third, Kuhn misinterprets the initial resistance to Einstein's Theory of Relativity. The real problem with the acceptance of this theory is that when it made its debut (especially in the case of Einstein's General Theory), few physicists themselves could even understand the mathematics and physics involved. Ignorance should not be confused with scientific irrationalism or just stubborn refusal to accept the truth.

Well, I hope you didn't mind my little philosophy digression, but I thought I'd make a few comments about the evolution of these ideas since Kuhn and Polanyi's theories are best understood in the context of the development of philosophical ideas over the last several centuries.

More puzzles, please...
These collected essays provide a nice framework for further investigations into Kuhn's groundbreaking 'The Structures of Scientific Revolutions.'At the forefront are the issues of writing the history of scientificdisciplines.This is to be contrasted with the philosophy of science, and,to be sure, Kuhn differentiates the writing of a history from thephilosophy.What this book provides are more empirical and contextualessays that serve as details to the theoretical framework of"Structures."Kuhn is and will always be a frustrating butrewarding thinker.This book is no exception. ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (3)

An extremely challenging book
Anyone who has learned quantum mechanics has been told, in a general way, what Planck did and how it fits into the history of quantum physics. Kuhn shows that Planck thought about his goals and his results very differently than do textbook writers today.

Warning! This is a very tough read:
- You will not get much out of this book unless you are able and willing to follow detailed arguments in thermodynamics and statistical physics, in fairly gory mathematical detail. Quantum history-lite this isn't!
- You will also not get much out of this book unless you are willing to relax about the "right" way of thinking about thermodynamics and quantum theory. However YOU may think about it, Planck thought about it differently -- and Kuhn attempts to follow his thought, zigging & zagging as he did. If you're not willing to follow along closely and attentively for the ride, you will miss the story.

The payoff from reading this book is a more vivid understanding and appreciation for how very very differently we think about physics than the way it physicists saw it 100 years ago.

All you wanted to know about q.m. but were afraid to ask
The solution to the blackbody radiation problem is often quoted in Physics books as the formal bridge between the classic and quantum world viewpoints. However, as Kuhn points out, the full solution and not just the answer is nowhere else to be found.
Well beyond the satisfaction that reading this book should present to any serious Quantum Physics related student it is an absoulte requirement in the History of Physics.
Yes, the mathematical arguments get quite dense and most are not trivial. However, little is needed beyond basic calculus, statiscal mechanics and thermodynamics. View this as an excellent excuse to get going in those areas.
If every time you hear something about the beginnings of q.m. something stirs in your guts telling you that something is not quite right about the story you're being fed, that the full story isn't being told, then who could be better than Kuhn to show you that you were after right, after all?

How the Quantum came to be
Excellent book, as Kuhn's usually are, on the origin of quantum theory. "Everyone" knows Planck arrived at the quantum by studying black-body radiation, but what you are never told is *why* he was doingthat! Kuhn reaches back as to why Planck was, and has an interesting storyto tell for it (the question of thermodynamic irreversability vsreversability in classical mechanics). Another major part of Kuhn's tale isthat even after he arrived at his quantum hypothesis, Planck still saw itas a direct extension of classical physics. It was others, mainly Einstein,who realized the revolutionary nature of the quantum (and who ran with theidea), and physicists like Planck had to conceptually play catch up in thequantum revolution in the first decade of the 20th century. One seriousWARNING: while interesting and well written, the book has some verytechnical parts, requiring at least intermediate college physics. While notflooded with equations, Kuhn freely gets into thermodynamics andstatistical mechanics (entropy, free energy, H-theorem,...) in explainingthe core of Planck's early work. The reader should be prepared for sometechnical physics on the journey! ... Read more

Book Description

Customer Reviews (1)

Excellent analysis of the difficult details ofKuhn's work.
The author shows that he masters the subject with insight and is able to reconstruct either chronologically or by problems, thesis, objections and possible interpretations, the philosophical work of T.S.Kuhn. He choices topresent the reconstruction from a caritative point of view, wich allows himto concentrate into the internal problems of Kuhn's theory of science. InPart I he locates Kuhn's work in the context of the Historiography ofScience. Part II concentrates in the problem of scientific knowledge andKuhn'shard and highly misunderstood thesis about "the constructionof the world". Part III develops the subject of the dynamic ofscientific knowledge and Kuhn's point of view about scientific progress. It is particulary helpfull to have at hand Kuhn's books while readingHoyningen-Huene's book because he has a gift for suitable quotation. ... Read more

Book Description
This digital document, covering the life and work of Thomas S(amuel) Kuhn, is an entry from Contemporary Authors, a reference volume published by Thompson Gale. The length of the entry is 1251 words. The page length listed above is based on a typical 300-word page. Although the exact content of each entry from this volume can vary, typical entries include the following information:

• Place and date of birth and death (if deceased)
• Family members
• Education
• Professional associations and honors
• Employment
• Writings, including books and periodicals
• A description of the author's work
• References to further readings about the author

Book Description
Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is arguably one of the most influential books of the twentieth century and a key text in the philosophy and history of science. Kuhn transformed the philosophy and history of science in the twentieth century in an irrevocable way and still provides an important alternative to formalist approaches in the philosophy of science.

In Kuhn's `The Structure of Scientific Revolutions': A Reader's Guide, John Preston offers a clear and thorough account of this key philosophical work. The book offers a detailed review of the key themes and a lucid commentary that will enable readers to rapidly navigate the text. The guide explores the complex and important ideas inherent in the text and provides a cogent survey of the reception and influence of Kuhn's work. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Excelente libro, terrible traducción
El libro muestra un desarrollo histórico de la ciencia excelente. Perfecto para comprender la naturaleza y desarrollo de la cienca a través del tiempo. Presenta las complejidades de la producción científica y su relación con el desarrollo ulterior de la ciencia. Sin embargo, a pesar de ser lectura obligada para cualquiera que desea conocer más acerca de la ciencia, recomiendo la versión en inglés. Esta versión en particular contiene numerosos errores de concordancia y no permite seguir una secuencia lógica en la lectura. Mas que exponer la ideas del autor, el traductor tiende a confundirlas. ... Read more

Book Description
The early twentieth century brought about the rejection by physicists of the doctrine of determinism - the belief that complete knowledge of the initial conditions of an interaction in nature allows precise and unambiguous prediction of the outcome. This book traces the origins of a central problem leading to this change in viewpoint and paradoxes raised by attempts to formulate a consistent theory of the nature of light. It outlines the different approaches adopted by members of different national cultures to the apparent inconsistencies, explains why Einstein's early (1905) attempt at a resolution was not taken seriously for fifteen years, and describes the mixture of ideas that created a route to a new, antideterministic formulation of the laws of nature. Dr Wheaton describes the experimental work on the new forms of radiation found at the turn of the century and shows how the interpretation of energy transfer from X-rays to matter gradually transformed a classical wave explanation of light to one based on particle like quanta of energy, and further, he explains how influential scientists came reluctantly to accept a wavelike interpretation of matter as well. This new and distinctively different account of one of the major theoretical shifts in modern physical thought will be of fundamental interest to physical scientists and philosophers, as well as to historians of science. ... Read more