Thomas Kuhn y Thomas Kuhn y
La estructura de las revoluciones científicasLa estructura de las revoluciones científicas
INTENTAR TRADUCIRINTENTAR TRADUCIR
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhnhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn
The Structure of Scientific RevolutionsThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(1962)(1962)
InIn
The Structure of Scientific RevolutionsThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions
(SSR) (1962)(SSR) (1962)Kuhn argued that science does not progress via a linearKuhn argued that science does not progress via a linearaccumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodicaccumulation of new knowledge, but undergoes periodicrevolutions, also called "paradigm shifts" (although he didrevolutions, also called "paradigm shifts" (although he didnot coin the phrase), in which the nature of scientific inquirynot coin the phrase), in which the nature of scientific inquirywithin a particular field is abruptly transformed. In general,within a particular field is abruptly transformed. In general,science is broken up into three distinct stages. Prescience,science is broken up into three distinct stages. Prescience,which lacks a central paradigm, comes first. This is followedwhich lacks a central paradigm, comes first. This is followedby "normal science", when scientists attempt to enlarge theby "normal science", when scientists attempt to enlarge thecentral paradigm by "puzzle-solving". Thus, the failure of acentral paradigm by "puzzle-solving". Thus, the failure of aresult to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refutingresult to conform to the paradigm is seen not as refutingthe paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contrathe paradigm, but as the mistake of the researcher, contraPopper's refutability criterion. As anomalous results buildPopper's refutability criterion. As anomalous results buildup, science reaches aup, science reaches a
crisiscrisis
, at which point a new paradigm,, at which point a new paradigm,which subsumes the old results along with the anomalouswhich subsumes the old results along with the anomalousresults into one framework, is accepted. This is termedresults into one framework, is accepted. This is termed
revolutionary sciencerevolutionary science
..
InIn
SSRSSR
, Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms are, Kuhn also argues that rival paradigms areincommensurable—that is, it is not possible toincommensurable—that is, it is not possible tounderstand one paradigm through theunderstand one paradigm through theconceptual framework and terminology of conceptual framework and terminology of another rival paradigm.another rival paradigm.For many critics, this thesis seemed to entailFor many critics, this thesis seemed to entailthat theory choice is fundamentally irrational: if that theory choice is fundamentally irrational: if rival theories cannot be directly compared, thenrival theories cannot be directly compared, thenone cannot make a rational choice as to whichone cannot make a rational choice as to whichone is better. Whether or not Kuhn's views hadone is better. Whether or not Kuhn's views hadsuch relativistic consequences is the subject of such relativistic consequences is the subject of much debate; Kuhn himself denied themuch debate; Kuhn himself denied theaccusation of relativism in the 3rd edition of accusation of relativism in the 3rd edition of
SSRSSR
, and sought to clarify his views to avoid, and sought to clarify his views to avoidfurther misinterpretation. Freeman Dyson hasfurther misinterpretation. Freeman Dyson hasquoted Kuhn as saying "I am not a Kuhnian!",quoted Kuhn as saying "I am not a Kuhnian!",referring to the relativism that somereferring to the relativism that somephilosophers have developed based on his work.philosophers have developed based on his work.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
Notes
Load more
