An overview of the debate between the two most influential modern
philosophies of science. Fuller (Sociology/Univ. of Warwick) places
Thomas Kuhn (1922-96) and Karl Popper (1902-94) at the heads of two
divergent schools of thought about the roles of science and the
scientist. Kuhn's 1960 book, The Structure of Scientific
Revolutions, postulated that scientists normally work within a
paradigm, a framework of ideas that controls what questions they
ask and what data they examine. At intervals, a new paradigm-for
example, the Copernican solar system-captures the imagination of a
new generation of scientists and replaces the old one, without
necessarily being a more accurate depiction of reality. Popper, an
intellectual descendent of the logical positivist school, argued
that the essence of science is the search for ways to falsify
accepted viewpoints, and that only those propositions that can be
disproved are genuinely scientific. Fuller states the two men's
basic positions and examines their underlying scientific,
historical, and political premises. Openly acknowledging that he
finds Kuhn's theory detrimental to the independence of science, the
author suggests that because Kuhn came to intellectual maturity in
an era when American society needed to subsume scientific research
into the Cold War effort, he favored a view in which most
scientists do not ordinarily question basic principles. Popper's
view, that science is a model of an open society in which free
inquiry is the norm, offers at the same time more personal freedom
and more personal responsibility to the individual scientist. While
the general verdict is that Kuhn won the debate during the two
men's lifetimes, Fuller argues that Popper's view retains the
potential to liberate science from its current role as the
handmaiden of government and business. A succinct yet in-depth
inquiry into a significant philosophical issue. (Kirkus Reviews)
Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions" has sold
over a million copies in more than twenty languages and has
remained one of the ten most cited academic works for the past half
century. In contrast, Karl Popper's seminal book "The Logic of
Scientific Discovery" has lapsed into relative obscurity. Although
the two men debated the nature of science only once, the legacy of
this encounter has dominated intellectual and public discussions on
the topic ever since.
Almost universally recognized as the modern watershed in the
philosophy of science, Kuhn's relativistic vision of shifting
paradigms -- which asserted that science was just another human
activity, like art or philosophy, only more specialized --
triumphed over Popper's more positivistic belief in science's
revolutionary potential to falsify society's dogmas. But has this
victory been beneficial for science? Steve Fuller argues that not
only has Kuhn's dominance had an adverse impact on the field but
both thinkers have been radically misinterpreted in the process.
This debate raises a vital question: Can science remain an
independent, progressive force in society, or is it destined to
continue as the technical wing of the military-industrial complex?
Drawing on original research -- including the Kuhn archives at MIT
-- Fuller offers a clear account of "Kuhn vs. Popper" and what it
will mean for the future of scientific inquiry.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
Welcome to Loot.co.za!
Sign in / Register |Wishlists & Gift Vouchers |Help | Advanced search
