scholarly journals Czy Kuhnowska koncepcja rewolucji naukowej adekwatnie opisuje rozwój fizyki? Uwagi na temat monografii Wojciecha Sadego

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 17-23
Author(s):  
Zenon E. Roskal

In this article I argue with Wojciech Sady’s answer to the question whether scientific revolutions in physics (relativistic and quantum) adequately characterize the development of this discipline? I also take issue with Sady’s crirtique of Kuhn’s concept of scientific revolutions by pointing out that it omits significant scientific works that founded the critique of the concept of scientific revolution.

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
pp. 2584-2588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cláudio José de Souza ◽  
Zenith Rosa Silvino

ABSTRACT Objective: To reflect on the key concepts of the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions and its applicability in professional master's in nursing. Method: This is a theoretical-reflective study that uses the philosophical and epistemological conceptions of the philosopher Thomas Samuel Kuhn to consider its applicability on the paradigm shift of stricto sensu graduate courses in nursing. The main concepts of Kuhn were used as support: paradigm, anomaly, scientific community and scientific revolution. Results: The propositions of this philosopher are applied to and support the theoretical reflection on professional master's programs, contributing to clarify what would be a paradigmatic visionary perspective in stricto sensu master's models in nursing. Conclusion: From Kuhn's propositions it was possible to conclude that professional master's programs in nursing can break away from the dominant paradigm, strengthening a scientific revolution within the academia.


1988 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 126-133 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alberto Elena

Historians and philosophers of science have usually followed Kuhn in his appraisal of Lyell's contribution to geology as a major scientific revolution. Nevertheless a detailed analysis of the historical evidence rather support a different view: Lyell's work did not establish any paradigm to be unanimously accepted by his colleagues. Thus Kuhn's model of scientific change does not authorize us to speak of a Lyellian revolution in geology. On the contrary such an interpretation is a recent historiographic myth, originated with Gillispie's Genesis and Geology and promptly prevailing as a result of Kuhn's highly influential The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 59-74
Author(s):  
Alexander Ruser ◽  

Philosophers of Science have developed sophisti-cated models for explaining how scientific revolu-tions are brought about and more generally how scientists deal with facts that contradict pre-existing assumptions and theoretical concepts. Likewise historians of science and sociologists of knowledge have produced comprehensive studies on how scientific breakthroughs have sparked social revolution and how social factors fostered or hampered scientific developments. However, scientific revolutions and scientific “progress” always seem to be at the center of at-tention. The equally important question of why sometimes new evidence and contradicting evi-dence fail to trigger a scientific revolution has been largely neglected though. Improving our understanding of “called off” or “postponed” rev-olutions not only contributes to analyses of suc-cessful scientific revolutions. Understanding how defenders of the status quo manage to suppress new information and ignore scientific facts is cru-cial to understanding scientific and political con-troversy. This contribution therefore seeks to out-line a conceptual model for probing into the “black box” of scientific revoltions. In addition it will outline a potential framework for analyzing the survival of neoclassic economic theory after the global financial crisis.


Author(s):  
Dudley Shapere

When one scientific theory or tradition is replaced by another in a scientific revolution, the concepts involved often change in fundamental ways. For example, among other differences, in Newtonian mechanics an object’s mass is independent of its velocity, while in relativity mechanics, mass increases as the velocity approaches that of light. Earlier philosophers of science maintained that Einsteinian mechanics reduces to Newtonian mechanics in the limit of high velocities. However, Thomas Kuhn (1962) and Paul Feyerabend (1962, 1965) introduced a rival view. Kuhn argued that different scientific traditions are defined by their adherence to different paradigms, fundamental perspectives which shape or determine not only substantive beliefs about the world, but also methods, problems, standards of solution or explanation, and even what counts as an observation or fact. Scientific revolutions (changes of paradigm) alter all these profoundly, leading to perspectives so different that the meanings of words looking and sounding the same become utterly distinct in the pre- and post-revolutionary traditions. Thus, according to both Kuhn and Feyerabend, the concepts of mass employed in the Newtonian and Einsteinian traditions are incommensurable with one another, too radically different to be compared at all. The thesis that terms in different scientific traditions and communities are radically distinct, and the modifications that have stemmed from that thesis, became known as the thesis of incommensurability.


1979 ◽  
Vol 44 (4) ◽  
pp. 644-657 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J. Meltzer

Aspects of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions are discussed and criticized. Problems are pointed out in three general areas: the latitude Kuhn allows in the concept paradigm, his views on the nature of scientific change, and his notion of incommensurability and the accompanying problems of relativism. The utilization of Kuhn's model by archaeologists is then critiqued, with a focus on the varying interpretations of the paradigmatic state of the discipline. Finally, consideration is given to the recent changes in archaeology that have led to the claim that there has been a scientific revolution in the field. It is argued that those ostensibly fundamental changes are neither revolutionary nor particulary beneficial to a scientific archaeology.


mBio ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Arturo Casadevall ◽  
Ferric C. Fang

ABSTRACTOn rare occasions in the history of science, remarkable discoveries transform human society and forever alter mankind’s view of the world. Examples of such discoveries include the heliocentric theory, Newtonian physics, the germ theory of disease, quantum theory, plate tectonics and the discovery that DNA carries genetic information. The science philosopher Thomas Kuhn famously described science as long periods of normality punctuated by times of crisis, when anomalous observations culminate in revolutionary changes that replace one paradigm with another. This essay examines several transformative discoveries in the light of Kuhn’s formulation. We find that each scientific revolution is unique, with disparate origins that may include puzzle solving, serendipity, inspiration, or a convergence of disparate observations. The causes of revolutionary science are varied and lack an obvious common structure. Moreover, it can be difficult to draw a clear distinction between so-called normal and revolutionary science. Revolutionary discoveries often emerge from basic science and are critically dependent on nonrevolutionary research. Revolutionary discoveries may be conceptual or technological in nature, lead to the creation of new fields, and have a lasting impact on many fields in addition to the field from which they emerge. In contrast to political revolutions, scientific revolutions do not necessarily require the destruction of the previous order. For humanity to continue to benefit from revolutionary discoveries, a broad palette of scientific inquiry with a particular emphasis on basic science should be supported.


Conatus ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
George Boutlas

Integrative Bioethics engages in descriptive and normative fields, or in two cultures, as Snow puts it in The Two Cultures and the Scientific Revolution, announcing though, in his later writings the emergence of a third culture that can mediate between the two. Thomas Kuhn in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions exposes the practice of a new paradigm of the teaching of history describing in fact the relation of science and humanities in the positivist era. The long standing reasons-causes debate that lay the groundwork of the implied incompatibility of the two cultures, as it reflects on the Collingwoodian anti-causalism of the philosophy of history, against Davidsonian causalism, may elucidate the problem of the ‘marriage’ of cultures. Taking a look on Collingwood’s absolute presuppositions and Carnap’s external to linguistic frameworks questions, will help us investigate the possibility of a coherent framework for integrated Bioethics. Can we frame a transdisciplinary field, where science and humanities as collaborating social practices, or as a new ‘cultural policy’ (according to Richard Rorty), will abstain from normative violence against each other?


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 207-226
Author(s):  
Vladimir Vizgin

The article examines the scientific and biographical approach to the history of science and especially its version, which can be called the method of personification of history. Both methods were proposed by S. I. Vavilov and both are associated with his understanding of the history of science as “a sequence of rare fluctuations of thought and scientific work ... like Archimedes and Newton”. The method of personification of history is illustrated on a number of large-scale fragments of the history of physics of the 19th and 20th centuries. Five cases of such personification are considered. This is, first of all, the case of G. Monge, who personified the science and technology of revolutionary France (analyzed by Vavilov himself). Two casesrefer to two scientific revolutions in physics of the 20th century (to the quantum-relativistic – the case of A. Einstein and to the gauge-field – the case of M. Gell-Mann). And, finally, two cases of personification of the history of Russian physics. In the first, not one, but two essentially opposite key figures of Russian physics on the eve of the scientific revolution are considered: N. A. Umov and P. N. Lebedev. The second case is S. I. Vavilov himself, who in many ways personified the development of Soviet physics in the first half of the 20th century.


Gesnerus ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 68 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-25
Author(s):  
Claire Crignon

The discovery of the principle of blood circulation by William Harvey is generally considered as one of the major events of the “scientific revolution” of the 17th century. This paper reconsiders the question by taking in account the way Harvey’s discovery was discussed by some contemporary philosophers and physicians, in particular Fontenelle, who insisted on the necessity of redefining methods and principles of medical knowledge, basing themselves on the revival of anatomy and physiology, and of its consequences on the way it permits to think about the human nature. This return allows us to consider the opportunity of substituting the kuhnian scheme of “structure of scientific revolutions” for the bachelardian concept of “refonte”.


1998 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 184-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eric S. Lander

We are living through one of the greatest scientific revolutions in history: the “information revolution” in genetics. The revolution is leading to a deep understanding of biological processes and is uncovering the molecular basis of many human diseases and susceptibilities. It is also confronting society with a vast array of choices, and presenting each individual with the question of what knowledge to seek and how to act on that knowledge, My purpose is to discuss the scientific foundations of this revolution and to foreshadow its consequences.The current scientific revolution has perhaps one appropriate historical precedent: the chemical revolution that followed Dmitri Mendeleev's key insight in 1869 that the elements could be organized in a simple periodic table.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document