Talk:Thomas Kuhn

message: I do not understand why Wikipedia article on Kuhn shows the book of Alexander Bird (with Kuhn's photo on it) instead of Kuhn's photo alone? Such an approach is, first of all, highly biased towards one (for some philosophers, not very convincing) interpretation of Kuhn. Second, it promotes this very interpretation as the "standard" one - again highly unreflected approach. Thirdly, I am very surprised that this issue hasn't been brought up before :-/ RenuRenu (talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cover Picture 

message: Currently this article links to normal science, but this in turn is a redirect right back to here. This should be fixed. Either an actual article on normal science should be started, or the link here should be removed and the term sufficiently explained in this article. -- Timwi 19:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call. I've replaced the redirect with a stub. If no one else gets around to writing the article in the next month or so, I'll dig out my copy of Kuhn and try to write something useful. -- Jmabel 23:43, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! :-) — Timwi 20:56, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Normal science

message: I imagine that the recently added material about family, added anonymously without citation, is probably true, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if it were verified by a registered user. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
:I suggest deletion.  That sort of thing belongs in an obituary, not an encyclopaedia article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulromney (talk • contribs) 11:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...But fortunately in their greater wisdom, the stewards of Wikipedia do not harbor such discriminatory prejudice against unregistered users.    Meanwhile this article has almost nothing about the man named Khun other than his CV and work.   Compare to say; Albert Einstein. ...see men, not gods.  --69.110.91.50 (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no problem with adding material about his life; it just needs to be sourced from a written biography or newspapers or interviews.  That anonymous user added it all without citing a single source.  --Alatari (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps I'm wrong but I think wiki policy suggests that "without citation [but] is probably true," is not sufficient for grounds for removal, nor its consideration. However this is not true should it be reasonably challenged.  I am certain that is true for the lead section.  I'm also certain about that greater wisdom of the founders and stewards of Wikipedia.  --71.137.156.36 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  family 

message: The article currently makes it sound like Norris Hanson was a huge and major influence on Kuhn's work. My skimming through the footnotes of Structure though doesn't turn him up once. In the preface, Kuhn explicitly lists only the following people as his intellectual influences for the book (his lists a few other people for helping him edit drafts, including Feyerabend, but I don't think that's likely the same thing meant here):
*Alexandre Koyré
*Emile Meyerson
*Hélène Metzger
*Anneliese Maier
*A.O. Lovejoy
*Jean Piaget
*B.L. Whorf
*W.V.O. Quine
*Ludwik Fleck
*Francis X. Sutton
So, I guess what I'm asking is -- are there grounds for highlighting Hanson above all these others? Is this an actor attribution or an analyst one? I think this should be made more clear if we're talking about his philosophical influences. --Fastfission 19:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a reference to Hanson on page 113 of the 3rd edn: "N.R. Hanson, in particular, has used gestalt demonstrations to elaborate some of the same consequences of scientific belief that concern me here." But that's all he says on that page.. --Fastfission 19:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hanson influence?

message: I have added this section as per the tasks note at PhilosophyTasks. --JTBurman 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: In the autobiographical interview conducted in 1995, and published in The Road Since Structure (2000), Kuhn describes his "philosophical problematic" as focussing on  incommensurability: that, in short, is why there are punctuations in paradigm change.  Yet there is no mention of it here.  Incommensurability is required before this article can be considered complete. --JTBurman 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incommensurability

message: Could someone please point me to a passage in SSR where Kuhn uses the phrase "paradigm shift"? BFD1 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The closest I can find is "paradigm-induced gestalt shift" (p. 120, 3rd ed.).  He frequently mentions perceptual shifts and paradigm changes, and gradually equates the latter with the former, but I couldn't find the actual phrase in a quick skim.--ragesoss 14:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much! This is a minor annoyance of mine; the phrase is frequently attributed to Kuhn but I have yet to see an actual instance of him using it. I suspect he never does -- the whole idea behind the resolution of a period of extraordinary science is that the new paradigm replaces the old (and often incommensurable) one. The idea that the old paradigm shifts over a bit to the right to become the new paradigm is contradicted by the incommensurability thesis. Paradigm change, yes. Gestalt switch, yes. Shift of perception, yes. But "paradigm shift" tends too much towards the connotation of cumulativity and linear progression that Kuhn sought to deny. BFD1 15:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: p150, 1996 3rd edition paperback - "...one group or the other must experience the conversion that we have been calling a paradigm shift".  --ajn (talk) 15:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, snap. Thanks! BFD1 15:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As you say, it does seem a bit of an odd phrase, implying something quite different from Kuhn's actual theory.  In context, it's about scientists with different paradigms not being able to even communicate until one group has converted, because they live in different worlds (i.e. the "incommensurability of competing paradigms").  --ajn (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, "paradigm shift" seems to describe what happens to the individual scientist (i.e., she experiences a paradigm shift) rather than what happens at a disciplinary level (e.g. Einsteinian paradigm replacing the Newtonian paradigm). Out of sensitivity to this distinction we might consider changing the article. The "periodic revolutions" which science goes through are not "paradigm shifts", as the article claims. Thoughts? BFD1 15:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe not. I just read the article on Paradigm_shift. BFD1 16:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does both depending on how people use it. Kuhn was not very exacting in his use of terms or his explanation of them, hence the famous "he uses a million definitions of 'paradigm' and none of them are consistent" claim. I think he would probably say that it happens first at an individual level with individual "converts" (I saw one way, now I see another) but after they gain traction the full "shift" on the community level is less dramatic (textbooks said one thing, now they say another). But that's just my speculation. In any case, whether or not such an activity is actually a description of change in science, or only a heuristic for thinking about scientific change, is still rather contentious... --Fastfission 20:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Paradigm Shift"

message: I removed the following paragraph from the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" section of this article:
:In France, Kuhn's conception of science has been related to Michel Foucault (with Kuhn's paradigm corresponding to Foucault's episteme) and Louis Althusser, although both are more concerned by the historical conditions of possibility of the scientific discourse. (Foucault, in fact, was most directly influenced by Bachelard, who had developed independently a view of the history of scientific change similar to Kuhn's.)  Thus, they do not consider science as isolated from society as they argue that Kuhn does. In contrast to Kuhn, Althusser's conception of science is that it is cumulative, even though this cumulativity is discontinuous (see his concept of "epistemological break") whereas Kuhn considers various paradigms as incommensurable.
I did so because this article is about Kuhn, not SSR, and to include the above in what should be a brief sketch of Kuhn's life and accomplishments assigns undue significance. I think it belongs in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions article. BFD1 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Foucault

message: The "Kuhn hates Muslims" stuff really has to go. Agent Cooper 16:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islam 

message: This edit asks for citation that The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is Kuhn's best known and most influential work. This is like asking for citation that George Washington is best known for being a general and president, or that Lizzie Borden is best known for killing her parents. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm of the opinion if someone uses ranking words such as 'best', 'worst' and 'most' they need to cite sources for these claims.  Although getting sales figures can be problematic (Bookscan is expensive) and measuring the importance of a fact by sheer number of references in literature and on the web is something for when humans have digitized all known works and an AI has been evolved to be able to number all the references to an item.  Until then I've been using Google hits, Alexa numbers and other sources.  Alatari (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd request for citation 

message: The section of this article directed towards to Polanyi-Kuhn debate says that both individuals' work made science "relativistic".  Kuhn himself objected to the idea that science is relativistic and widely refuted claims that his writing indicated it to be so.  This is particularly evident in the 1969 post-script to SSR, which is now included in standard editions of the book.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.13.4 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific Relativism 

message: The article currently claims in the alleged 'Polanyi-Kuhn Debate' section:
“In response to these critics, Kuhn cited Polanyi in the second edition of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,…"
But there seems to be no reference to Polanyi in the second edition of TSSR, nor indeed in the first. 
Thus I flag the claim for provision of a quotation citing Polanyi. --Logicus (talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: So where is Polanyi ?

message: Anyone knows what happened to the new biography "Reluctant Revolutionary: The Life and Ideas of Thomas S. Kuhn" by Keay Davidson that was supposed to come out 2005 (four years ago)?
This was referenced at http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/center/center_news.asp?id=241.  
I also noticed that "The Death of Truth: Thomas S. Kuhn and the Evolution of Ideas" from the same author - most probably the same book (?), supposedly published by Oxford University Press, USA (February 28, 2006) - compare http://www.amazon.com/Death-Truth-Thomas-Evolution-Ideas/dp/0195144325 - never became available.
Any ideas?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.174.67.234 (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Biography? 

message: This article says "Kuhn interviewed and taped Danish physicist Niels Bohr the day before Bohr's death. The recording contains the last words of Niels Bohr caught on tape.[citation needed]."
This claim that the interview occurred the day before Bohr died is not consistent with other sources.
The AIP website (http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4517_1.html) that presents the transcript of the interview says the interview was given on 31 October 1962.  
Bohr's date of death according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) is given as 18 November 1962.
149.43.218.10 (talk) 13:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What reason do you have to believe that this wasn't the last interview? People don't do interviews that often, especially when they're on their deathbed...--Heyitspeter (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not true that Kuhn interviewed Bohr the day before he died? 

message: The words of the introduction are very strongly positive and biased relative to people that think about science in general. 
Most scietists have never heard of Thomas Kuhn, his work, or his ideas. 
Because of his great obscurity in the scientific world, neither a sufficient criticism nor rebuttal has been made.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.219.37 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Kuhn's work is required reading of many Physics Bachelor programs  --Alatari (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the introduction 

message: Added an external link of interest on Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/kuhn-o28.shtml
36hourblock (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, agreed it is an interesting link. Please note that I reverted your first attempt to add it as I got a circular link to the Kuhn article and thought (wrongly) that it was vandalism. I've re-added it. Sunray (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Whitlow commentary on Kuhn 

message: I am a little confused by the assertion that "Kuhn [...] believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativistic discipline", against the preceding section's assertion that "Kuhn himself denied the accusation of relativism in the third edition of SSR". I don't know enough about Kuhn to clear up the apparent contradiction (or maybe there is no contradiction and I just fail reading comprehension :) ).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.115.139 (talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relativism under the heading "Polanyi-Kuhn debate" 

message: I often say that Kuhn and Popper were to Science what Einstein was to Physics. My impression is that they were revolutionary in theoretical scientific thinking, and by now; changed our way of looking at the world. Yet when I read the lead section I want to yawn. Do I over-value them? They are merely theory spinners or "claim"-makers who deeply influenced some scientists back in the sixties?  (...Kinda Tim Leary?)  So Kuhn's ideas really didn't change anything !? 
Also, since the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says the lead should be self-contained, while technically correct, doesn't it appear to over-value subjectiveness? Yet I see no solution.  --71.137.156.36 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with comment on Kuhn v. Popper in the debate.  where is the criticism of Kuhnian philosophy in this article.  Where is the discussion of subjective v. objective science.  Some areas of science are arguably not capable of being subjected to rigorous scientific classification; physics/physical chemistry certainly are, however, areas that rely on statistical time series and panel comparisons such as macroeconomics and climate change are doomed to end up in endless opinion debate, for one reason they rely on incomplete data, incomplete model specifications (almost by definition) and incomplete analysis for the preceding reasons.Danleywolfe (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you actually read scientific literature? It is mind-boggling that you cite physics and physical chemistry and then come up with climate change as a contrast, which is essentially traceable directly to the laws of thermodynamics and a bunch of physical constants. Pretty much all proper scientific research relies on "statistical time series and panel comparisons", because it's the only way to establish an observation is not a fluke. --91.67.245.87 (talk) 22:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  I must Overvalue Kuhn?  

message: Hi,
In the article it says: "Kuhn was an agnostic." but in the Infobox at the right it says he's a Judaist. Could you at least just add the fact that he was agnostic in his adultery times. I don't edit the articles because I'm not registered and don't know if I edit them, admins will get angry because of me.
Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.202.141.29 (talk) 13:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing Religion Section of The Infobox 

message: There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages. 
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. 
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion|Request for Comments]] 

message: I am surprised a Criticism section has not so far been introduced in this article. Popper's page has a fairly large one, for example. Nidhishunnikrishnan (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section 

message: I dislike the photograph of Kuhn used in the article. There appears to be something wrong with it. Looking carefully, it appears that to the left of Kuhn's face there is a transparent outline of his face. I have no idea whether that was caused by a photography error or not, but in any case, that image with that flaw certainly should not be in the article. Could someone find a better image of Kuhn? Zarenon (talk) 09:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article photograph