![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I shifted a lot of text - the bit that was just about the book - from this entry to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. So I've shifted the Talk: text from here to Talk: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions too. - David Gerard 22:14, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
I do not understand why Wikipedia article on Kuhn shows the book of Alexander Bird (with Kuhn's photo on it) instead of Kuhn's photo alone? Such an approach is, first of all, highly biased towards one (for some philosophers, not very convincing) interpretation of Kuhn. Second, it promotes this very interpretation as the "standard" one - again highly unreflected approach. Thirdly, I am very surprised that this issue hasn't been brought up before :-/ RenuRenu ( talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Renu
—Preceding unsigned comment added by RenuRenu ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently this article links to normal science, but this in turn is a redirect right back to here. This should be fixed. Either an actual article on normal science should be started, or the link here should be removed and the term sufficiently explained in this article. -- Timwi 19:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I imagine that the recently added material about family, added anonymously without citation, is probably true, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if it were verified by a registered user. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Recent change noted: The phrase "scientific revolutions", previously linked to " scientific revolution" (which was wrong: that's specifically the Copernican Revolution), is now linked to " paradigm shift", which also fails to discuss the term, but probably should. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
The article currently makes it sound like Norris Hanson was a huge and major influence on Kuhn's work. My skimming through the footnotes of Structure though doesn't turn him up once. In the preface, Kuhn explicitly lists only the following people as his intellectual influences for the book (his lists a few other people for helping him edit drafts, including Feyerabend, but I don't think that's likely the same thing meant here):
So, I guess what I'm asking is -- are there grounds for highlighting Hanson above all these others? Is this an actor attribution or an analyst one? I think this should be made more clear if we're talking about his philosophical influences. -- Fastfission 19:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The two most consistently mentioned influences, through The Essential Tension and The Road Since Structure, are Ludwik Fleck and Jean Piaget. -- JTBurman 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that (Norwood Russell) Hanson's influence is in Kuhn's use of the idea of gestalt switch as a basis for incommensurability. I found Hanson referenced in Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) on page 113, and found two references to Hanson in Kuhn's Road Since Structure, Pp 34 and 293. And I found eight references in the index to Essential Tension including a footnote (P. 167) indicating personal correspondence between Hanson and Kuhn apparently before publication of SSR. But I think Hanson was an early influence. Kuhn revised his ideas over the years, including such central ideas as paradigm and incommensurability, because academic philosophers were not satisfied with gestalt switch and demanded a philosophy of language. In the 1980's Kuhn attempted to formulate (and reformulate and re-reformulate) such a linguistic analysis. But in my view never succeeded, and I know of no one who wrote that he had succeeded. So, one may reasonably ask: Which Kuhn? Thickey3 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Thomas J. Hickey
This recent addition seems to me to be well-intentioned, but based on a poor reading of Kuhn. I read him mostly over 25 years ago, so I am not the best one to address this. I'm going to drop a note at Template:PhilosophyTasks. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the passage:
"While compelling, Kuhn's theory has an inherent flaw, for if it is in fact taken as "true," it is merely a product of its paradigm and nothing more, therefore rendering it meaningless as anything more than "just" a theory (the problem of reflexivity). Also, taking the theory as true would imply that truth exists in the universe, an idea against which Kuhn argued."
is terrible and should be deleted. The main theory of one of the most influential philosophers of the last 50 years refuted in two sentences? I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.231.227 ( talk) 27 Oct 2005
I have added this section as per the tasks note at PhilosophyTasks. -- JTBurman 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In the autobiographical interview conducted in 1995, and published in The Road Since Structure (2000), Kuhn describes his "philosophical problematic" as focussing on incommensurability: that, in short, is why there are punctuations in paradigm change. Yet there is no mention of it here. Incommensurability is required before this article can be considered complete. -- JTBurman 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. From a historical perspective, the philosophy laid out in SSR was considered quite radical because of the inter-related concepts of incommensurability and "world change". While the exact meaning of these terms as Kuhn uses them is subject to some debate, this article might better establish the relevance and importance of SSR by incorporating a brief description of these controversial concepts. I will perform an edit ASAP. BFD1 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
How did Kuhn's ideas post 1970s relate to the quantitative revolution in physical geography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.150.181 ( talk) 21 Jan 2006
Could someone please point me to a passage in SSR where Kuhn uses the phrase "paradigm shift"? BFD1 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph from the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" section of this article:
I did so because this article is about Kuhn, not SSR, and to include the above in what should be a brief sketch of Kuhn's life and accomplishments assigns undue significance. I think it belongs in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions article. BFD1 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the piece mention that Kuhn's idea of scientific revolutions is far from being accepted by many working scientists? (Including me!) There is at least as much evidence that science progresses by evolution, not revolution, except for "the" scientific revolution of the 17th century.
Charlie T 20 August 2006
give me a break. scientists all over will want to dispute his terms because they want to believe that what they're doing is not a matter of revolution but a matter of accretion. they want to believe that they are tending towards the truth. Kuhn's major contribution was to tell these people that they were only speaking to one frame of mind, and they were only seeking the truth so long as they were seeking their frame of mind. give it up. Kuhn's contribution is just so easy. Your field might be interesting and you might think that it seeks the metaphysical imperatives that denote the truth, but Kuhn wants to argue that it is not so easy. this coming from someone trained in science in the academy. at any rate, this is opinion, and has nothing to do with the biography of the person. if you disagree with kuhn's ideas without citation, then you need to take it somewhere else. probably among other scientists who believe they and they only have access to the truth regardless of any other interceding context. but hey, who has ever lived their life not believing this at one point or time? however, the main point is, this is criticism, or maybe opinion, not anything to do with wiki. peace.
-justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.161.156 ( talk) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You should know that criticism and opinion are answers to different questions and criticism has everything to do with a wiki. An encyclopedia page on an academic should ideally include a criticism section, especially if the person had widely discussed views on science and philosophy. Karl Popper's page, for example, has a fairly long Criticism section. Nidhishunnikrishnan ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The "Kuhn hates Muslims" stuff really has to go. Agent Cooper 16:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This edit asks for citation that The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is Kuhn's best known and most influential work. This is like asking for citation that George Washington is best known for being a general and president, or that Lizzie Borden is best known for killing her parents. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm the guy who requested the citation. I never had any doubt that that SSR is Kuhn's best-known work, but I still think it would be a good idea to cite sources regarding the relative importance of his books and essays. After all, if it's true that one of his books is obviously more important than the others, then there should be no shortage of references supporting that fact. The sources above look great. - Sushi Tax 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The section of this article directed towards to Polanyi-Kuhn debate says that both individuals' work made science "relativistic". Kuhn himself objected to the idea that science is relativistic and widely refuted claims that his writing indicated it to be so. This is particularly evident in the 1969 post-script to SSR, which is now included in standard editions of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.13.4 ( talk) 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The article currently claims in the alleged 'Polanyi-Kuhn Debate' section:
“In response to these critics, Kuhn cited Polanyi in the second edition of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,…"
But there seems to be no reference to Polanyi in the second edition of TSSR, nor indeed in the first.
Thus I flag the claim for provision of a quotation citing Polanyi. -- Logicus ( talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone knows what happened to the new biography "Reluctant Revolutionary: The Life and Ideas of Thomas S. Kuhn" by Keay Davidson that was supposed to come out 2005 (four years ago)?
This was referenced at http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/center/center_news.asp?id=241.
I also noticed that "The Death of Truth: Thomas S. Kuhn and the Evolution of Ideas" from the same author - most probably the same book (?), supposedly published by Oxford University Press, USA (February 28, 2006) - compare http://www.amazon.com/Death-Truth-Thomas-Evolution-Ideas/dp/0195144325 - never became available.
Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.174.67.234 ( talk) 22:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This article says "Kuhn interviewed and taped Danish physicist Niels Bohr the day before Bohr's death. The recording contains the last words of Niels Bohr caught on tape.[citation needed]."
This claim that the interview occurred the day before Bohr died is not consistent with other sources.
The AIP website ( http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4517_1.html) that presents the transcript of the interview says the interview was given on 31 October 1962.
Bohr's date of death according to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) is given as 18 November 1962. 149.43.218.10 ( talk) 13:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per consensus, redirects fixed. ukexpat ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to redate this for when it was actually listed. The discussion is stale, but in my opinion still valid. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Samuel Kuhn → Thomas Kuhn — I propose that this article is moved (i.e. named changed) to just Thomas Kuhn. He is refered to as Kuhn, T. S. Kuhn and Thomas Kuhn, but not by his full name. Of course his full name would still appear in the first sentence in bold as per usual. I will make the move within a few days if not contested -- Tom dl ( talk) 06:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the proposal, as Thomas Kuhn is the commonly-used name; I believe there are bots that automatically sort the double redirects. Skomorokh 12:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The words of the introduction are very strongly positive and biased relative to people that think about science in general.
Most scietists have never heard of Thomas Kuhn, his work, or his ideas.
Because of his great obscurity in the scientific world, neither a sufficient criticism nor rebuttal has been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.219.37 ( talk) 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
.
Added an external link of interest on Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/kuhn-o28.shtml
36hourblock ( talk) 20:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
My thanks for the restoration. 36hourblock ( talk) 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I am a little confused by the assertion that "Kuhn [...] believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativistic discipline", against the preceding section's assertion that "Kuhn himself denied the accusation of relativism in the third edition of SSR". I don't know enough about Kuhn to clear up the apparent contradiction (or maybe there is no contradiction and I just fail reading comprehension :) ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.115.139 ( talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC) The anon user was me, btw. Jobriath ( talk) 13:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The form of his name which he used on his publications was Thomas S. Kuhn, so that would seem to be a better article title. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I often say that Kuhn and Popper were to Science what Einstein was to Physics. My impression is that they were revolutionary in theoretical scientific thinking, and by now; changed our way of looking at the world. Yet when I read the lead section I want to yawn. Do I over-value them? They are merely theory spinners or "claim"-makers who deeply influenced some scientists back in the sixties? (...Kinda Tim Leary?) So Kuhn's ideas really didn't change anything !?
Also, since the
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says the lead should be self-contained, while technically correct, doesn't it appear to over-value subjectiveness? Yet I see no solution.
--
71.137.156.36 (
talk)
04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Hi, In the article it says: "Kuhn was an agnostic." but in the Infobox at the right it says he's a Judaist. Could you at least just add the fact that he was agnostic in his adultery times. I don't edit the articles because I'm not registered and don't know if I edit them, admins will get angry because of me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.202.141.29 ( talk) 13:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised a Criticism section has not so far been introduced in this article. Popper's page has a fairly large one, for example. Nidhishunnikrishnan ( talk) 17:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I dislike the photograph of Kuhn used in the article. There appears to be something wrong with it. Looking carefully, it appears that to the left of Kuhn's face there is a transparent outline of his face. I have no idea whether that was caused by a photography error or not, but in any case, that image with that flaw certainly should not be in the article. Could someone find a better image of Kuhn? Zarenon ( talk) 09:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I shifted a lot of text - the bit that was just about the book - from this entry to The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. So I've shifted the Talk: text from here to Talk: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions too. - David Gerard 22:14, Jan 19, 2004 (UTC)
I do not understand why Wikipedia article on Kuhn shows the book of Alexander Bird (with Kuhn's photo on it) instead of Kuhn's photo alone? Such an approach is, first of all, highly biased towards one (for some philosophers, not very convincing) interpretation of Kuhn. Second, it promotes this very interpretation as the "standard" one - again highly unreflected approach. Thirdly, I am very surprised that this issue hasn't been brought up before :-/ RenuRenu ( talk) 00:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Renu
—Preceding unsigned comment added by RenuRenu ( talk • contribs) 21:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
Currently this article links to normal science, but this in turn is a redirect right back to here. This should be fixed. Either an actual article on normal science should be started, or the link here should be removed and the term sufficiently explained in this article. -- Timwi 19:56, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I imagine that the recently added material about family, added anonymously without citation, is probably true, but I'd be a lot more comfortable if it were verified by a registered user. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)
Recent change noted: The phrase "scientific revolutions", previously linked to " scientific revolution" (which was wrong: that's specifically the Copernican Revolution), is now linked to " paradigm shift", which also fails to discuss the term, but probably should. -- Jmabel | Talk 15:50, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
The article currently makes it sound like Norris Hanson was a huge and major influence on Kuhn's work. My skimming through the footnotes of Structure though doesn't turn him up once. In the preface, Kuhn explicitly lists only the following people as his intellectual influences for the book (his lists a few other people for helping him edit drafts, including Feyerabend, but I don't think that's likely the same thing meant here):
So, I guess what I'm asking is -- are there grounds for highlighting Hanson above all these others? Is this an actor attribution or an analyst one? I think this should be made more clear if we're talking about his philosophical influences. -- Fastfission 19:05, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The two most consistently mentioned influences, through The Essential Tension and The Road Since Structure, are Ludwik Fleck and Jean Piaget. -- JTBurman 23:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe that (Norwood Russell) Hanson's influence is in Kuhn's use of the idea of gestalt switch as a basis for incommensurability. I found Hanson referenced in Structure of Scientific Revolutions (SSR) on page 113, and found two references to Hanson in Kuhn's Road Since Structure, Pp 34 and 293. And I found eight references in the index to Essential Tension including a footnote (P. 167) indicating personal correspondence between Hanson and Kuhn apparently before publication of SSR. But I think Hanson was an early influence. Kuhn revised his ideas over the years, including such central ideas as paradigm and incommensurability, because academic philosophers were not satisfied with gestalt switch and demanded a philosophy of language. In the 1980's Kuhn attempted to formulate (and reformulate and re-reformulate) such a linguistic analysis. But in my view never succeeded, and I know of no one who wrote that he had succeeded. So, one may reasonably ask: Which Kuhn? Thickey3 01:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)Thomas J. Hickey
This recent addition seems to me to be well-intentioned, but based on a poor reading of Kuhn. I read him mostly over 25 years ago, so I am not the best one to address this. I'm going to drop a note at Template:PhilosophyTasks. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the passage:
"While compelling, Kuhn's theory has an inherent flaw, for if it is in fact taken as "true," it is merely a product of its paradigm and nothing more, therefore rendering it meaningless as anything more than "just" a theory (the problem of reflexivity). Also, taking the theory as true would imply that truth exists in the universe, an idea against which Kuhn argued."
is terrible and should be deleted. The main theory of one of the most influential philosophers of the last 50 years refuted in two sentences? I don't think so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.231.227 ( talk) 27 Oct 2005
I have added this section as per the tasks note at PhilosophyTasks. -- JTBurman 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
In the autobiographical interview conducted in 1995, and published in The Road Since Structure (2000), Kuhn describes his "philosophical problematic" as focussing on incommensurability: that, in short, is why there are punctuations in paradigm change. Yet there is no mention of it here. Incommensurability is required before this article can be considered complete. -- JTBurman 23:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I completely agree. From a historical perspective, the philosophy laid out in SSR was considered quite radical because of the inter-related concepts of incommensurability and "world change". While the exact meaning of these terms as Kuhn uses them is subject to some debate, this article might better establish the relevance and importance of SSR by incorporating a brief description of these controversial concepts. I will perform an edit ASAP. BFD1 16:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
How did Kuhn's ideas post 1970s relate to the quantitative revolution in physical geography? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.150.181 ( talk) 21 Jan 2006
Could someone please point me to a passage in SSR where Kuhn uses the phrase "paradigm shift"? BFD1 13:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraph from the "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" section of this article:
I did so because this article is about Kuhn, not SSR, and to include the above in what should be a brief sketch of Kuhn's life and accomplishments assigns undue significance. I think it belongs in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions article. BFD1 19:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the piece mention that Kuhn's idea of scientific revolutions is far from being accepted by many working scientists? (Including me!) There is at least as much evidence that science progresses by evolution, not revolution, except for "the" scientific revolution of the 17th century.
Charlie T 20 August 2006
give me a break. scientists all over will want to dispute his terms because they want to believe that what they're doing is not a matter of revolution but a matter of accretion. they want to believe that they are tending towards the truth. Kuhn's major contribution was to tell these people that they were only speaking to one frame of mind, and they were only seeking the truth so long as they were seeking their frame of mind. give it up. Kuhn's contribution is just so easy. Your field might be interesting and you might think that it seeks the metaphysical imperatives that denote the truth, but Kuhn wants to argue that it is not so easy. this coming from someone trained in science in the academy. at any rate, this is opinion, and has nothing to do with the biography of the person. if you disagree with kuhn's ideas without citation, then you need to take it somewhere else. probably among other scientists who believe they and they only have access to the truth regardless of any other interceding context. but hey, who has ever lived their life not believing this at one point or time? however, the main point is, this is criticism, or maybe opinion, not anything to do with wiki. peace.
-justin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.161.156 ( talk) 10:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
You should know that criticism and opinion are answers to different questions and criticism has everything to do with a wiki. An encyclopedia page on an academic should ideally include a criticism section, especially if the person had widely discussed views on science and philosophy. Karl Popper's page, for example, has a fairly long Criticism section. Nidhishunnikrishnan ( talk) 17:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
The "Kuhn hates Muslims" stuff really has to go. Agent Cooper 16:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
This edit asks for citation that The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is Kuhn's best known and most influential work. This is like asking for citation that George Washington is best known for being a general and president, or that Lizzie Borden is best known for killing her parents. - Jmabel | Talk 22:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm the guy who requested the citation. I never had any doubt that that SSR is Kuhn's best-known work, but I still think it would be a good idea to cite sources regarding the relative importance of his books and essays. After all, if it's true that one of his books is obviously more important than the others, then there should be no shortage of references supporting that fact. The sources above look great. - Sushi Tax 22:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The section of this article directed towards to Polanyi-Kuhn debate says that both individuals' work made science "relativistic". Kuhn himself objected to the idea that science is relativistic and widely refuted claims that his writing indicated it to be so. This is particularly evident in the 1969 post-script to SSR, which is now included in standard editions of the book. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.61.13.4 ( talk) 00:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
The article currently claims in the alleged 'Polanyi-Kuhn Debate' section:
“In response to these critics, Kuhn cited Polanyi in the second edition of "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,…"
But there seems to be no reference to Polanyi in the second edition of TSSR, nor indeed in the first.
Thus I flag the claim for provision of a quotation citing Polanyi. -- Logicus ( talk) 15:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Anyone knows what happened to the new biography "Reluctant Revolutionary: The Life and Ideas of Thomas S. Kuhn" by Keay Davidson that was supposed to come out 2005 (four years ago)?
This was referenced at http://www.johnemackinstitute.org/center/center_news.asp?id=241.
I also noticed that "The Death of Truth: Thomas S. Kuhn and the Evolution of Ideas" from the same author - most probably the same book (?), supposedly published by Oxford University Press, USA (February 28, 2006) - compare http://www.amazon.com/Death-Truth-Thomas-Evolution-Ideas/dp/0195144325 - never became available.
Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.174.67.234 ( talk) 22:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
This article says "Kuhn interviewed and taped Danish physicist Niels Bohr the day before Bohr's death. The recording contains the last words of Niels Bohr caught on tape.[citation needed]."
This claim that the interview occurred the day before Bohr died is not consistent with other sources.
The AIP website ( http://www.aip.org/history/ohilist/4517_1.html) that presents the transcript of the interview says the interview was given on 31 October 1962.
Bohr's date of death according to Wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niels_Bohr) is given as 18 November 1962. 149.43.218.10 ( talk) 13:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page moved per consensus, redirects fixed. ukexpat ( talk) 17:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Just to redate this for when it was actually listed. The discussion is stale, but in my opinion still valid. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
Thomas Samuel Kuhn → Thomas Kuhn — I propose that this article is moved (i.e. named changed) to just Thomas Kuhn. He is refered to as Kuhn, T. S. Kuhn and Thomas Kuhn, but not by his full name. Of course his full name would still appear in the first sentence in bold as per usual. I will make the move within a few days if not contested -- Tom dl ( talk) 06:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
I support the proposal, as Thomas Kuhn is the commonly-used name; I believe there are bots that automatically sort the double redirects. Skomorokh 12:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
The words of the introduction are very strongly positive and biased relative to people that think about science in general.
Most scietists have never heard of Thomas Kuhn, his work, or his ideas.
Because of his great obscurity in the scientific world, neither a sufficient criticism nor rebuttal has been made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.33.219.37 ( talk) 16:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
.
Added an external link of interest on Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oct2011/kuhn-o28.shtml
36hourblock ( talk) 20:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
My thanks for the restoration. 36hourblock ( talk) 21:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
I am a little confused by the assertion that "Kuhn [...] believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativistic discipline", against the preceding section's assertion that "Kuhn himself denied the accusation of relativism in the third edition of SSR". I don't know enough about Kuhn to clear up the apparent contradiction (or maybe there is no contradiction and I just fail reading comprehension :) ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.115.139 ( talk) 13:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC) The anon user was me, btw. Jobriath ( talk) 13:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
The form of his name which he used on his publications was Thomas S. Kuhn, so that would seem to be a better article title. SamuelTheGhost ( talk) 17:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I often say that Kuhn and Popper were to Science what Einstein was to Physics. My impression is that they were revolutionary in theoretical scientific thinking, and by now; changed our way of looking at the world. Yet when I read the lead section I want to yawn. Do I over-value them? They are merely theory spinners or "claim"-makers who deeply influenced some scientists back in the sixties? (...Kinda Tim Leary?) So Kuhn's ideas really didn't change anything !?
Also, since the
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) says the lead should be self-contained, while technically correct, doesn't it appear to over-value subjectiveness? Yet I see no solution.
--
71.137.156.36 (
talk)
04:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford
Hi, In the article it says: "Kuhn was an agnostic." but in the Infobox at the right it says he's a Judaist. Could you at least just add the fact that he was agnostic in his adultery times. I don't edit the articles because I'm not registered and don't know if I edit them, admins will get angry because of me. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.202.141.29 ( talk) 13:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.
The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.
Please help us determine consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
I am surprised a Criticism section has not so far been introduced in this article. Popper's page has a fairly large one, for example. Nidhishunnikrishnan ( talk) 17:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
I dislike the photograph of Kuhn used in the article. There appears to be something wrong with it. Looking carefully, it appears that to the left of Kuhn's face there is a transparent outline of his face. I have no idea whether that was caused by a photography error or not, but in any case, that image with that flaw certainly should not be in the article. Could someone find a better image of Kuhn? Zarenon ( talk) 09:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)