Vous voulez voir cette page en français ? Cliquez ici.

Have one to sell? Sell yours here
Tell the Publisher!
I'd like to read this book on Kindle

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions [Paperback]

Thomas S. Kuhn
4.5 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)

Available from these sellers.


Amazon Price New from Used from
Hardcover --  
Paperback --  
There is a newer edition of this item:
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions The Structure of Scientific Revolutions 4.1 out of 5 stars (75)
Currently unavailable

Book Description

April 1 1970 Foundations of Unity of Science
The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is a landmark in intellectual history which has attracted attention far beyond its own immediate field. It is written with a combination of depth and clarity that make it an almost unbroken series of aphorisms. Its author, Thomas S. Kuhn, wastes little time on demolishing the logical empiricist view of science as an objective progression toward the truth. Instead he erects from ground up a structure in which science is seen to be heavily influenced by nonrational procedures, and in which new theories are viewed as being more complex than those they usurp but not as standing any closer to the truth. Science is not the steady, cumulative acquisition of knowledge that is portrayed in the textbooks. Rather, it is a series of peaceful interludes punctuated by intellectually violent revolutions . . . in each of which one conceptual world view is replaced by another.

Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought

Product Details

Product Description

From Amazon

Since the publication of this book in 1962, Kuhn's writings (and many of his ideas, such as "paradigm shift") have been highly influential in academic and popular discourse. This book is must-reading for anyone studying the history and philosophy of science specifically, or cultural or technological change generally.

About the Author

Thomas S. Kuhn was the Laurence Rockefeller Professor Emeritus of linguistics and philosophy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His books include The Essential Tension; Black-Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912; and The Copernican Revolution.
--This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title.

Sell a Digital Version of This Book in the Kindle Store

If you are a publisher or author and hold the digital rights to a book, you can sell a digital version of it in our Kindle Store. Learn more

What Other Items Do Customers Buy After Viewing This Item?

Customer Reviews

3 star
2 star
1 star
4.5 out of 5 stars
4.5 out of 5 stars
Most helpful customer reviews
4.0 out of 5 stars Buddy, Can You Paradigm? Oct. 16 2001
An influential work in the history and philosophy of science, this book serves as a source for the popular use of the term "paradigm." A paradigm consists of the "disciplinary matrix" of science: the framework of assumptions, beliefs, values, and techniques that define a field at a particular time. The term is also used to refer to particular problem situations that exemplify this framework and through which a science is learned by its practitioners. "Normal" science progresses, according to Kuhn, by elaborating a particular paradigm. When "puzzle solving" within a paradigm can no longer account for significant 'facts', a scientific revolution can occur, involving the birth of a new paradigm. Kuhn's views hint at those enunciated earlier by Alfred Korzybski, e.g., "logical fate" and "abstracting." Korzybski saw what Kuhn called "scientific revolutions" as exemplars or paradigms of human progress. Could scientific revolutions become more "normal" if scientists became more aware of their guiding paradigms, more conscious of abstracting?
Was this review helpful to you?
By A Customer
I've always seen Kuhn as a middle ground between Popper and Feyerabend (Someone who took Kuhn's idea about society and personality influencing science, and ran with it) for the most part. I think Popper is a better writer, Feyerabend says more interesting and though provoking things, but if you want something approaching a synthesis of the falsifiability doctrine and the social dynamic way of looking at things, Kuhn, and this book by Kuhn is essential.
This is where people who outgrow Gould and Dawkins should be coming. It's more dry, and less populist than these two, but it provides for a deeper understanding.
Was this review helpful to you?
5.0 out of 5 stars Not different from the second edition. Oct. 29 1998
By A Customer
The 3rd ed. (1996) is, with the exception of a two page index, identical to the 2nd ed. (1970). I can find no differences between the two versions, save that short index.
Was this review helpful to you?
5.0 out of 5 stars Enlightning! Jan. 21 1998
By A Customer
Kuhn does a fantastic job outlining the chaotic backward and forward leaps involved in the advancement of the religion we call Science. Truely enlightning!
Was this review helpful to you?
Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)
Amazon.com: 4.4 out of 5 stars  27 reviews
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Not different from the second edition. Oct. 28 1998
By A Customer - Published on Amazon.com
The 3rd ed. (1996) is, with the exception of a two page index, identical to the 2nd ed. (1970). I can find no differences between the two versions, save that short index.
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars If you've used the word paradigm, you must read this book. July 11 1996
By A Customer - Published on Amazon.com
I read this book almost 30 years ago and still consider it one of the most profound texts I have read. It gives genuine insight into fundamental beliefs. I still cringe when I hear TQM speakers talk about paradigm shifts. People don't change paradigms like a pair of glasses, they change them about as easily as they might change into a new set of eyes. Persons of accomplishment have gotten where they are by mastering skills that fit into their understanding of the world around themselves. Is it so difficult to understand that they would be hesitant to start looking at the world in a new way and deny the world that gives value to their achievements. This is not a book about psychology. It is a book about the unavoidable consequences a being logical creatures. You really do need to read this book
3 of 3 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Oldie by Goodie Oct. 15 2010
By Fei Yang - Published on Amazon.com
Format:Paperback|Verified Purchase
This is a classical book on scientific philosophy. How this book changed the world does not need my complimnet. The only reason I gives it four rather than five is because I highly recommend the newest version.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Normal Science vs. Paradigm Shift Aug. 15 2013
By Leonard Seet - Published on Amazon.com
Thomas Kuhn, through the concept of paradigm shift, has demythologized science as an accumulation of knowledge through smooth progress. That, for Kuhn, is just normal science, the incremental progress within the limits, biases and assumptions of a paradigm. For him, a paradigm is a set of accepted practices within the scientific community, the scientific traditions the scientists have grown up with. For him, "The success of a paradigm... is at the start largely a promise of success discoverable in selected and still incomplete examples. And "Normal science consists in the actualization of that promise."

Though Thomas Kuhn focused on the Copernican Revolution, for me the Quantum Revolution is a more poignant example of paradigm shift. And the latter, like the former, starts with inexplicable phenomena. When the traditional electromagnetic theory of Maxwell's Equations couldn't explain black body radiation, Boltzmann and then Plank developed a set of equations with quantized energy levels to explain the phenomena. Later, Niels Bohr formulated the quantized levels of atoms to explain their discrete emissions.

As Kuhn says, "When, in the development of a natural science, an individual or group first produces a synthesis able to attract most of the next generation's practitioners, the older schools gradually disappear." In this case, Bohr persuaded his colleagues about the new view and pushed quantum mechanics into the forefront, securing it as the dominant theory in modern physics. But there were oppositions. Even Einstein, who proposed the quantization of light, could not accept the probabilistic nature of matter-energy as described by the Uncertainty Principle. For him, "God does not play dice."

The shift from Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics is a shift from a deterministic view of the universe to a probabilistic one, a change of beliefs and values. For Einstein and others, accepting quantum mechanics seemed like returning to the pre-scientific age, where a person, even a scientist, couldn't quantify and analyze and predict natural events. When the way of doing science changes, so do the tools. Whereas calculus was the mathematical tool of Newtonian mechanics, statistics and transforms, Fourier or others, and the related group theories are those of quantum mechanics. And we know, even outside of science, that using different tools creates different results.

For Kuhn, "Paradigms may be prior to, more binding, and more complete than any set of rules for research that could be unequivocally abstracted from them." So the preferences toward a deterministic worldview and the corresponding tools predisposed scientists to solve those problems with a well-defined solution. Motion under gravitational and electromagnetic forces in the macroscopic world. On the other hand, the preference toward a probabilistic worldview and the corresponding tools predispose scientists to focus on the uncertain boundaries between matter and energy, space and time, position and momentum, and energy and time. And so, "one of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions." Following the Quantum Revolution, scientists developed quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics (QCD) through normal science. But when string and other theories begin to emerge, scientists must again reevaluate their models and even more importantly their practices and worldviews.

Through The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, we begin to see scientific progress's jagged path and appreciate the subjective parts of doing science. And instead of worshiping science, we take on the scientific mindset of observing phenomena and analyzing data and revealing biases and modifying models.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars A "quieter" revolution from the `60's... Jan. 13 2012
By John P. Jones III - Published on Amazon.com
Thomas S. Kuhn wrote this classic work in the early `60's. He sought to describe how scientific revolutions occur. The `60's were famous for numerous social revolutions, most notably in improving the status of blacks and women in our society. Books such as Charles Reich's THE GREENING OF AMERICA rather famously made predictions on the direction of permanent social changes in America that never reached fruition. His book is now in that proverbial "dustbin of history." Kuhn's book is far more notable, and enduring, for providing a paradigm, as it were, on how shifts in scientific perception occur. The "as it were" refers to the fact that Kuhn is credited with first using the phrase "paradigm shift."

Kuhn postulates that there is a model, or paradigm, if you will, called "normal science." Virtually the entire scientific (and even non-scientific) community subscribe to this model. The role of a scientist operating within the normal parameters of a given paradigm is to "tweak" the model; that is, make further advances in our collective knowledge, but within the model's framework. But there always seem to be anomalies to a given explanation of the natural world, and the anomalies can mount, and seem to reach a "critical mass," (itself an expression from another paradigm shift), and eventually the entire paradigm is "shifted" to a new one. Certainly one of the most famous examples, cited by Kuhn, is the revolution in our thinking about our place in the universe, which was led by Galileo and Copernicus. Prior to this revolution, the standard model was that the earth was the center of the universe, with the sun, moon, and all the stars circling it. And they did so in perfect circles, because that is the way God would have wanted it. Perfection. But the observed motion of the celestial bodies mounted, perfect circles were imposed on perfect circles, in an effort to explain the motions, but eventually such structures became unwieldy, and unworkable. The time became right for the "paradigm shift" that stated it was the earth that circled the sun, which was just a small star in a universe full of them. Kuhn cites other examples, notably when Lavoisier published his paper in 1777 on the oxygen theory of combustion, which revolutionized our ideas on chemical processes. Yet another example is the 19th century theory that the universe was composed of "ether" through which waves traveled. That too has been discarded.

Kahn devotes specific chapters to detailing how the anomalies mount to a given paradigm, a "crisis" in scientific thinking occurs, followed by a revolution in that thinking, led by a very few men, and our world view changes, which Kahn declares to be progress. The author quotes Max Planck to sardonically and sadly note how that progress actually occurs: "a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Another enduring quote for me came from Francis Bacon: "Truth emerges more readily from error than confusion."

In the final chapter Kuhn raises, and briefly discusses some still very unanswered questions: "Why should the enterprise sketched above move steadily ahead as, say, art, political theory, or philosophy does not? Why is progress a perquisite reserved almost exclusively for the activities we call science?" "Why should scientific communities be able to reach a firm consensus unattainable in other fields?"

I've read the criticisms of this book which are posted in the Amazon reviews. Certainly one of the most valid is that Kuhn gave very limited coverage to the paradigm shift from Newtonian mechanics to quantum mechanics.

Lastly, I first read this book on the plane back from Vietnam (yes, as in "the war.") I was in desperate need to think about something else, and found it somewhat comforting that in some human enterprise some forward progress was being made. Still, the questions that Kuhn raises at the end of his book remain as valid today as 40 years ago: why progress in science; yet in the political field - and by extension, war , for example, the same old stupid mistakes continue to be made over and over again. Kuhn's work remains a five-star read, and I am pleased to see that as of this posting, his book is in the top 1000 best sellers.
Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

Look for similar items by category