
Thomas Kuhn Wasn't So Bad - pseudolus
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/thomas-kuhn-wasnt-so-bad/
======
kaycebasques
I remember reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in a seminar on
philosophies of history and being struck by how clear Kuhn’s writing and
thinking was.

This quote from the article sums up why the book resonated with me:

> Kuhn is a realist, in that he believes in some external, material reality
> beyond our language and cultural constraints, but he is simultaneously a
> relativist in that he has no access to nor can say anything definitive about
> that outside world independent of language and the conceptual categories
> that lead us to think this or that about external reality.

The gist of his thesis, if I recall correctly, is that scientists are indeed
progressing towards a deeper understanding of the universe, but the process
gets messy sometimes. When we hit an inflection point, and the current
paradigm for a field (such as physics) breaks down, multiple theories emerge
to restore the internal logic of the field, and the proponents of each camp
compete with each other for dominance. It gets messy when some scientists, who
have dedicated their lives to the old paradigm, are confronted with the idea
that their paradigm is outdated, and therefore their life’s work is kinda
outdated. Obviously you can look at it another way and say that we’re all in
it together and their work led us to discover the limits of the paradigm, but
the reality seems to be that this is a harsh reality to live through, and the
old paradigm scientists get reactionary and sometimes actively obstruct the
paradigm shift. But the truth eventually comes out when the new paradigm’s
theories correctly explain the problems that the old paradigm couldn’t
explain, and these new theories get backed by experimental evidence. I think
Kuhn goes so far as to say that sometimes the old paradigm can only be laid to
rest when its last proponents die.

~~~
gboudrias
> The gist of his thesis, if I recall correctly, is that scientists are indeed
> progressing towards a deeper understanding of the universe

Interpreting Kuhn is an art unto itself, but I find rather that he is saying
progressed can't be measured and therefore can't be inferred. He wouldn't be
much of a relativist otherwise! I'm not sure but I think he uses the word
"incommensurability", which implies an absence of indicators of progress (if
not him then certainly some interpretations of his book use that very word).

This is not to say that I agree, but it's the cold logic of it that makes him
hard to refute. Rather, pragmatists like me have resolved to ignore him and
enjoy our iPhones and lasers.

~~~
grey-area
Nothing in Kuhn precludes iphones or lasers.

His critique is more of the way the history of science is presented (as an
inevitable succession of triumphs on the way to a single objective truth, each
building on the last), than a rejection of objective progress or the
scientific method.

~~~
gboudrias
He's the poster child of epistemological relativism in science.... Whether he
meant this or not I can't say, but his book doesn't seem overly concerned
about history for its own sake. I find it too easy to get lost in the hidden
meaning of what he meant or meant to say though, as opposed to what he has
actually written.

And of course Kuhn isn't _opposed_ to the idea of progress, he's simply
raising the question "what really is progress and how can we know". This was
necessary at the time, but the trivialization of "advanced" technology has
made his point outdated in my opinion (if still perfectly valid in a logical
sense). It's almost unthinkable (to me) that Kuhn would've written his famous
book in the current era.

~~~
grey-area
His book, as actually written, is _mostly about_ the history of science.

From memory it's pretty straightforward, short, and not a difficult read. The
themes dealt with are timeless IMO, and just as relevant today. I'd encourage
anyone who hasn't read it to spend a few hours doing so.

~~~
8bitsrule
Yes. Before I read Kuhn, Popper, Polanyi and Feyerabend, I had naively thought
of science as a means to a higher, more solid 'truth'. Over time I realized
that (verified!) observations are more fundamental - bricks - than the
interpretations (temples) made of those bricks.

~~~
spiderjerusalem
Popper and Feyerabend are incompatible though. Feyerabend explicitly critiqued
Popper.

~~~
coldtea
That doesn't make it incompatible as readings.

It's not even that one is right and the other is wrong.

Both can have right and wrong points we can adopt (even if either of them
would want us to take all of their points wholesale).

------
zaat
While I highly appreciated Kuhn when I was reading The Structure, this
sentence from the article:

>Yes, Kuhn could be a bully, especially towards anyone who challenged him,
such as Errol or our late colleague Harold Dorn. But for someone like myself,
non-threatening and interested in science and the Enlightenment, Kuhn was kind
and took his responsibilities seriously as a teacher

seems like an accurate description of the worst teachers I had in college,
those I truely despised. Those who couldn't care less for an enthusiastic
students while enjoying the superiority feelings of teaching the weakest
students.

~~~
klyrs
Yeah, this strikes me as a problematic point to gloss over. Brilliance should
not excuse abusive behavior. When an academic's ego gets in the way of honest
discourse, that's a fair critique. Indeed, mass-murderers are often "nice" to
the people they interact with -- but when people write those stories, this is
often presented as a point of confusion and regret -- and never as an excuse
for the problematic behavior.

------
mcguire
" _Yes, Kuhn could be a bully, especially towards anyone who challenged him,
such as Errol or our late colleague Harold Dorn. But for someone like myself,
non-threatening and interested in science and the Enlightenment, Kuhn was kind
and took his responsibilities seriously as a teacher. The first draft of my
paper for his thermodynamics seminar was a disaster, but he took the time and
trouble (and only 1-1 /2 pages of single-spaced typed response) toward guiding
me to see its flaws, and he taught me the simple, but invaluable lesson that
before you write, you have to know what you want to say._"

This reads like a serious case of Stockholm syndrome or an abused spouse.

~~~
Kinnard
Which I think is common in the master-student relationship including when
invaluable lessons are being passed on. An effed up reality.

cf Pai Mei in Kill Bill or Sufi marabouts and their talibés in Senegal.

~~~
ourmandave
"Good night Westley. Good work. Sleep well. I'll most likely kill you in the
morning."

------
zwkrt
I listened to a podcast with Errol Morris on the same subject, and got a
similar impression that there was no need to be so harsh. IIRC Errol's main
academic argument against Kuhn was that he simultaneously touted his idea of
"paradigm shift", but also that the best way to study the history of science
was to be very meticulous about only making inferences directly from primary
materials. Morris's concern was that since we are in a different paradigm than
say Newton, the inferences we make from his works will be tainted from it own
viewpoint. In other words, you can't have it both ways--either past ways of
thinking are unreachable or "paradigm shifts" are not real.

This was all tied into Morris's views on epistemology more generally. He
directed The Thin Blue Line, which was the first crime documentary with
dramatic reenactment. Reenactment can be argued to be inauthentic, but he
argued that it is no more problematic than taking someone's verbal account, as
was common in documentaries at the time. In some sense by putting pictures to
words the director can ensure that the victims account is misinterpreted as
little as possible.

~~~
zwkrt
This is the podcast, Hi Phi nation:
[https://m.soundcloud.com/hiphination/episode-9-the-ashes-
of-...](https://m.soundcloud.com/hiphination/episode-9-the-ashes-of-truth)

------
andybak
First I ever heard of Kuhn was in the margin notes that came back from my
teacher on a sociology essay about something or other. I was 17 and was very
pleased to find out that my random musings were backed up by this chap with
proper credentials.

Wish I still had that essay. I'd love to know if I had magically discovered
Kuhn's thesis independently at the age of 17 - or as is more likely - spouted
some vagueness that resembled his ideas if you squinted enough...

~~~
dredmorbius
Diving through dusty corners of numerous fields I'm finding many of my lunatic
ravings have established precedent with pedigree. I find it validating.

There are few truly novel ideas, and yet too, few which truly emerge into
public consciousness, and many of those are themselves wrong (or at least
gravely flawed), or greatly misunderstood. Often because they've been
misrepresented.

Keep on thinking and reading!

~~~
salty_biscuits
That old saying "a month in the lab can save you a few hours in the library"

~~~
dredmorbius
I totally misread your comment, my apologies.

I _like_ that.

(Though ... it's also got its pitfalls. And there's the whole notion of
explicit vs. tacit knowledge and learning.)

------
dmazin
Structure of Scientific Revolutions was incredibly revelatory for me. I did
not even realize there was any backlash against Kuhn except that his work is
sometimes co-opted by pseudo-scientists and that he was over-reliant on a
previous work (iirc).

------
acqq
His book is one of mentioned here, and I believe rightly:

[https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Books-That-Wouldn-t-
Di...](https://www.chronicle.com/article/The-Books-That-Wouldn-t-Die-/245879)

Also on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19423369](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19423369)

~~~
acqq
Specifically, the view I support, as well as a critique of Kuhn and those
inspired by him is the one described here:

[https://www.inventionofscience.com/](https://www.inventionofscience.com/)

------
baxtr
Anyone know if Kuhn was ever applied to health theories? E.g. smoking is good,
then got bad. Vegan etc.?

~~~
wolf550e
Kuhn's theory certainly applies to history of physiology because that is a
science. But most of what you think about as health theories (e.g. is doing X
good for you) are not scientific, they are marketing for products and services
or clickbaity misrepresentations of weak studies. Basically, Kuhn applies to
NEJM but not to Cosmopolitan.

------
woodandsteel
"Kuhn is a realist, in that he believes in some external, material reality
beyond our language and cultural constraints, but he is simultaneously a
relativist in that he has no access to nor can say anything definitive about
that outside world independent of language and the conceptual categories that
lead us to think this or that about external reality."

So Kuhn seems to believe that the biologists are all wrong when they claim our
brains have been formed by evolution to look at reality in certain universal
ways. Instead he seems to be taking the Cartesian position that human minds
exist outside the material realm. Most philosophers today would disagree.

~~~
dwaltrip
That quote isn't saying that minds exist outside of material reality, but that
minds can only conceive of approximate reconstructed representations of
material reality, and never "directly access" material reality itself.

------
bhouston
I loved Thomas Kuhn's book and I think it applies to most areas of innovation.

In backend development microservices really is revolutionary.

React/redux is equally revolutionary.

Changed everything. And then it holds stable for a bit while new ways of doing
things percolate but not yet really take over.

~~~
eropple
How are microservices "revolutionary"? How did they "change everything"? SOAs
aren't new. Microservices don't add anything new except perhaps a pathological
edge case when implemented uniwsely and the need for additional ceremony
because request tracing across huge whacks of microservices is hard.

~~~
village-idiot
On top of that, React and Redux are the packaging of theoretical concepts that
have been around for a while. The UX is good, which is why they’re popular,
but revolutionary is quite a reach.

~~~
bhouston
They did revolutionize web development. They do have theoretically heritage
that predates them for sure but these are end products they must come from
something. There are paradigm shift in web development. They really are not
just a little different but they restructure the whole way of doing dev
compared to what came before.

Of course Sao is like microservices but it is very different than monoliths.

The biggest issue with scientific revolutions theory, like this discussion, is
that you can break it down so that it doesn't seem like change, even when it
is.

~~~
village-idiot
They only revolutionized web development because web development had ignored
half a century worth of PLT.

Again, it’s a great step forward, but largely a great step forward for a realm
that was quite far behind. I don’t consider that to be revolutionary unless if
you’re wearing blinders.

~~~
naasking
In other words, they were revolutionary tools in web development, but they did
not create or present a revolutionary paradigm.

