Reassessing the Notion of a Kuhnian Revolution

2021 ◽  
pp. 125-142
Author(s):  
Eric R. Scerri
Keyword(s):  
2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-126 ◽  
Author(s):  
DEBORAH R. COEN

Bilingualism was Kuhn's solution to the problem of relativism, the problem raised by his own theory of incommensurability. In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, he argued that scientific theories are separated by gulfs of mutual incomprehension. There is no neutral ground from which to judge one theory fitter than another. Each is formulated in its own language and cannot be translated into the idiom of another. Yet, like many Americans, Kuhn never had the experience of moving comfortably between languages. “I've never been any good really at foreign languages,” he admitted in an interview soon before his death. “I can read French, I can read German, if I'm dropped into one of those countries I can stammer along for a while, but my command of foreign languages is not good, and never has been, which makes it somewhat ironic that much of my thought these days goes to language.” Kuhn may have been confessing to more than a personal weakness. His linguistic ineptitude seems to be a clue to his overweening emphasis on the difficulty of “transworld travel.” Multilingualism remained for him an abstraction. In this respect, I will argue, Kuhn engendered a peculiarly American turn in the history of science. Kuhn's argument for the dependence of science on the norms of particular communities has been central to the development of studies of science in and as culture since the 1980s. Recent work on the mutual construction of science and nationalism, for instance, is undeniably in Kuhn's debt. Nonetheless, the Kuhnian revolution cut off other avenues of research. In this essay, I draw on the counterexample of the physician–historian Ludwik Fleck, as well as on critiques by Steve Fuller and Ted Porter, to suggest one way to situate Kuhn within the broader history of the history of science. To echo Kuhn's own visual metaphors, one of the profound effects of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on the field of history of science was to render certain modes of knowledge production virtually invisible.


ICCS 2007 ◽  
2007 ◽  
pp. 199-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mandy Northover ◽  
Alan Northover ◽  
Stefan Gruner ◽  
Gerrick G Kourie ◽  
Andrew Boake

1983 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sal Restivo
Keyword(s):  

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 29-67
Author(s):  
Kenneth A. McElhanon

In the late twentieth century any given model of translation was constrained by the code model of communication and by the theory of linguistics upon which it was based. Whereas the code model supplied the notion of equivalence as the standard by which a translation was evaluated, the linguistic theory supplied what was regarded as the minimal unit of translation. Accordingly, as linguistic theories were formulated to account for increasingly larger units of text, translation models were redesigned so that the notion of equivalence mirrored the size of these linguistic units. Ultimately, the notion of equivalence became so broad that attempts to achieve it were regarded as illusionary. The result was a Kuhnian revolution of sorts, with two claimants: relevance theory and cognitive linguistics. The remainder of the paper highlights how recent insights of cognitive linguistics are important in the translation praxis.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document