The Theory Of Scientific Revolutions

1501 WordsOct 30, 20147 Pages
In my essay I plan to argue that Thomas Kuhn was incorrect when he presented his theory that no paradigm is better than any other paradigm and how he believed that people who occupy different paradigms are in different universes, in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I believe that there is no valid deductive or inductive support for incommensurability, there are examples against it throughout the history of science that do not exhibit the discontinuity and replacement of paradigms, as Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis predicts, but rather continuity and supplementation. If this is correct, then there are no compelling epistemic reasons to believe that Kuhn’s incommensurability thesis is true or probable. The argument that the point of the same kind terms changes or ceases from one theoretical context to another, it does not fundamentally mean that these two abstract frameworks are taxonomically or methodologically incommensurable. Kuhn’s theory takes a relativist stance and uses it to make all theories and paradigms equal with none being better than the other. This poses a major problem because the hope of scientific research is best said as “For a realist conception of scientific progress also wishes to assert that, by and large, later science improves on earlier science, in particular by approaching closer to the truth.” This means that all realist scientist hope that by advancing our scientific knowledge we will eventually come closer to the truth about
Open Document