Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996) was an American historian and philosopher of science who revolutionized our perception of scientific progress.
Kuhn was raised in an intellectually vibrant Ashkenazi family in Cincinnati, his mother a civil rights activist and editor and his father an industrial engineer. Kuhn received his Ph.D. in Physics from Harvard University with Nobel laureate John Van Vleck as his doctoral advisor. However, his interests shifted to the history and philosophy of science while teaching a course on the history of scientific ideas. He taught history and philosophy of science at Harvard, the University of California in Berkeley, Princeton, and MIT.
His landmark 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions became one of the most influential books in the history and philosophy of science, fundamentally changing how the world understands scientific progress. It challenged traditional ideas about how science develops and became a seminal text in fields including science studies, sociology, business management, psychology, and political science.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn introduced several key ideas that reshaped the philosophy of science:
Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts:
Kuhn argued that science is guided by paradigms—widely accepted frameworks of theories and practices that shape how scientists view the world. Rather than evolving steadily, as previously thought, scientific progress occurs through revolutions where a new one replaces an old paradigm. His book made “paradigm shift” a common term.
Normal Science:
Kuhn coined the term "normal science" to describe the day-to-day research conducted within an existing paradigm. Scientists focus on solving puzzles within the paradigm's framework, advancing knowledge without questioning the underlying assumptions.
Anomalies:
As scientists work within a paradigm, they inevitably encounter anomalies—observations that the current paradigm cannot explain. Initially, these anomalies are often ignored or attributed to error, but as they accumulate, they can weaken confidence in the prevailing framework.
Crisis and Scientific Revolution:
When enough anomalies build-up, a crisis occurs, creating instability in the scientific community. A scientific revolution follows when a new paradigm emerges that better explains the anomalies, fundamentally reshaping the field.
Incommensurability:
Kuhn proposed that paradigms are incommensurable, meaning that they are so different in their methods, concepts, and standards of evidence that they cannot be directly compared. This controversial idea suggests that it is difficult to objectively declare one paradigm superior to another.
Non-Linear Scientific Progress:
Contrary to the traditional view of science as a linear, cumulative process, Kuhn argued that scientific progress is discontinuous, marked by long periods of stability followed by sudden, radical shifts.
,
Quotes by Kuhn that flesh out his idea:
“We see the world in terms of our theories.”
"The answers you get depend upon the questions you ask."
"Science, far from being magisterial in its objectivity, is conditioned by history, society, and the prejudices of scientists."
"Normal science, the activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time, is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like."
"Normal science suppresses fundamental novelties because they are subversive of its basic commitments."
"Philosophers of science have demonstrated that more than one theoretical construction can always be applied to a given set of data."
"Under normal conditions, the research scientist is not an innovator but a puzzle-solver within the existing tradition."
“Every important idea in science sounds strange at first.”
"All significant breakthroughs are breaks with old ways of thinking."
"Individuals who break through by inventing a new paradigm are often either very young or new to the field, making them less committed to the old rules and more likely to see the need for change."
Thanks David. I’ve lazily avoided reading Kuhn and at first scrolled on from your piece. But it’s you writing it so I circled back, and wow. I had no idea. He’s absolutely nailed the “science” and practice of psychology. The only thing is disagreement with is his claim that it’s not possible to compare different paradigms. In psychology the comparison should be in terms of client outcomes measured via well-designed studies. Secondary to this is the robustness of the underlying theory, especially whether or not there is an identified and verified mechanism of action. Almost all current paradigms fail on both counts.