The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition

It rarely happens that you feel you are reading a masterpiece from the first few pages of a book. Here we have one of those situations. This book is also one of those you wish you had read years before, and yet you realise you probably wouldn't have been ready for it.The intuition won't disappoint. The book unveils answers to questions like "What is science and how does it differ from other disciplines?" or "Why do scientists behave in the way they do?" or "How does humanity progress in our understanding of nature?".Not everybody would ask these questions about a subject that is part of our everyday life. Hence, when those questions surprisingly find an answer, it feels like you suddenly understand something that has always been in front of you. And that is an exhilarating feeling.I'd consider this a must-read book for scientists and historians, as well as for lovers of both disciplines. But I believe the pages are of great value also for people with different professions and interests.It is, in fact, possible to draw analogies between the behaviour of scientists before and during a scientific revolution and the behaviour of other types of professionals when the paradigm they are anchored to is challenged.From that standpoint, this book has been invaluable to me. Now, I can better understand particular dynamics typical in my field (high-tech) when an emerging technology threatens the status quo.It is more comprehensible to me why, how, and when proponents and critics of the emerging technology defend their positions or change their minds about it.The book also opens the eyes to a fascinating angle with profound philosophical implications, articulated in Section X: replacing a paradigm with another doesn't merely lead to a different interpretation of the same data. Instead, it leads to capturing new data, resetting the observer's worldview (scientist or otherwise) rather than expanding it.My recommendation is to skip the introductory essay by Ian Hacking and start from Section I. It makes more sense to read the introductory essay after finishing the book. And by the book, I mean inclusive of the Postscript, which contains another intriguing philosophical entanglement: an embraced paradigm influences perception (just like life experience influences the predictions that the human brain constantly makes).A word of caution on the language: while accessible to most, the style is eloquent and erudite. Fully understanding each sentence requires above-ordinary focus and concentration.

It was rare for a philosophy essay to have the impact this had when it was published in 1962. Both widely read and serious, it featured in millennial lists of great books of the 20th century – New York Times, Time etc. Its key concept – paradigm - has passed into the social sciences, the arts and business studies and beyond into popular culture. It certainly might be considered a “should read”.It is not easy though. Structure addresses academic scientists and philosophers. In particular he confronts the ideas and propositions of Karl Popper. Some familiarity with physics and chemistry will be required.It has dated a little. Throughout Kuhn refers to scientists as men, not so strange in the 1960s. He holds a very “western view” of science, too. He accords to the practice and its practitioners a respect that has dimmed somewhat in the years since. Certainly today we are not so comfortable with the notion that science best manages itself. Nonetheless Kuhn’s ideas remain as important as they are challenging.Students are likely to encounter Structures on philosophy courses and as part of a taught programme it will easier to understand. It should appeal to graduates and undergraduates in the natural sciences especially. Kuhn himself tells us that in his own days as a student and then professor he found textbooks useful training manuals for physics, chemistry etc but inadequate in other ways. They misrepresented the history of their discipline and misconstrued how it reached its current point and how it would progress in the future. That was the 1940s and 1950s – have current texts been adapted as he suggested? Something readers today could usefully consider.The popularization of key ideas in Structure should be viewed with caution. Concepts such as paradigm have been transferred all too loosely into other domains. Furthermore, it would be false to see Kuhn as a "voice of the 60s" or to suggest that he was debunking technology and rationality. This edition has a useful introduction by Ian Hacking which supplies a corrective to such notions and valuable context.

Although many of the examples which explain how social sciences work today are outdated, it is still an excellent reference for philosophers of science and interested people to understand how scientific revolutions work.

You can do science without the philosophy of science however I believe it’s in the spirit of the enterprise to do more than just ‘what works’. Meta questions need to be asked to comprehend the purpose and scope of the scientific method.This is one of the most important book for understanding how science progresses and the structure of its history. It’s essential reading for philosophy students or those with an interest in the foundations of science.This book prompted the shift away from seeing the subject as a linear progression and toward the view that it moves forward via ‘paradigm shifts’ in understanding.The book is very clear, insightful, logical and at the same time easy to read, which cannot be said for many great philosophical work and a testament to Kuhn’s clear thinking. Whilst not every part of his argument is successful the fact that his views remain a live debate in philosophy classes to this day, show how important this work is, in this area of western thought.

Kuhn's masterpiece is still as relevant today as it was when it was published. The text is clear and accessible to all, and that's certainly something for a philosopher. Just look at Foucault).This book transcends disciplines. An important work of philosophy, yes, but it should not be them it is limited to. If there is one work outside their field I could make every scientist read, it would be this.If you found this review useful in any way I’d be super grateful if you clicked the “helpful” button below to let me know :)

This book will disabuse you of the notion that our knowledge is a continual adding to current knowledge. Kuhn points out that theories are adopted as they seem to answer questions. As time goes by, facts begin to argue against those theories. Eventually, a new theory is developed that explains those questions and the process continues. Highly recommended for the curious seeker of truth.

Exelente book and instruction classic book

A Estrutura das Revoluções Científicas é um clássico escrito pelo físico teórico e professor de História da Ciência Thomas Kuhn. O livro foi originalmente escrito na década de 60 e, apesar de ter apenas 266 páginas, tem uma leitura densa e reflexiva.A tese do autor é entender o que são e qual a importância das revoluções científicas. Para Kuhn, a ciência tradicional cresce por meio de contribuições marginais e por essa razão é incapaz de criar ideias novas quando encontra uma limitação. Apenas uma revolução causando uma mudança de paradigma rompendo com o modelo antigo é capaz de desenvolver novas ideias conceituais e fenomenais de forma a expandir o domínio do problema. Assim, o progresso científico se origina das revoluções.Para o autor, as revoluções científicas tem uma estrutura definida a qual evolui conforme a sequencia: (1) ciência normal; (2) resolução de problema; (3) paradigma; (4) anomalia; (5) crise e (6) revolução, finalmente estabelecendo um novo paradigma.Apesar de não ter interesse na área científica, utilizei o livro para entender a dinâmica evolutiva dos paradigmas econômicos e de gestão. O modelo de Kuhn nos permite entender bem esse processo.

Libro interessante, che tratta temi scientifici in maniera concreta e facile da capire. Idee rivoluzionarie, lungimirante. Specialmente in considerazione del periodo storico in cui fu scritto. Saluti.

There's a reason why every 21-century author with opinions worth reading on the history of science cites this book. It's a landmark and a masterpiece.