Thomas Kuhn
FameRank: 4

"Thomas Samuel Kuhn" was an American physics/physicist, history of science/historian, and philosophy of science/philosopher of science whose controversial 1962 book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions was influential in both academic and popular circles, introducing the term "paradigm shift", which has since become an English-language idiom.

Kuhn made several notable claims concerning the progress of scientific knowledge: that scientific fields undergo periodic "paradigm shifts" rather than solely progressing in a linear and continuous way, and that these paradigm shifts open up new approaches to understanding what scientists would never have considered valid before; and that the notion of scientific truth, at any given moment, cannot be established solely by objective criteria but is defined by a consensus of a sociology of scientific knowledge/scientific community. Competing paradigms are frequently Commensurability (philosophy of science)/incommensurable; that is, they are competing and irreconcilable accounts of reality. Thus, our comprehension of science can never rely wholly upon "objectivity" alone. Science must account for subjective perspectives as well, since all objective conclusions are ultimately founded upon the subjective conditioning/worldview of its researchers and participants.

If you enjoy these quotes, be sure to check out other famous writers! More Thomas Kuhn on Wikipedia.

The crises of our time, it becomes increasingly clear, are the necessary impetus for the revolution now under way. And once we understand nature's transformative powers, we see that it is our powerful ally, not a force to feared our subdued.

Literally as well as metaphorically, the man accustomed to inverting lenses has undergone a revolutionary transformation of vision.

Rather than being an interpreter, the scientist who embraces a new paradigm is like the man wearing inverting lenses.

It is, I think, particularly in periods of acknowledged crisis that scientists have turned to philosophical analysis as a device for unlocking the riddles of their field. Scientists have not generally needed or wanted to be philosophers.

What occurs during a scientific revolution is not fully reducible to a reinterpretation of individual and stable data.

Crisis alone is not enough. There must also be a basis, though it need be neither rational nor ultimately correct, for faith in the particular candidate chosen.

The historian of science may be tempted to exclaim that when paradigms change, the world itself changes with them.

Normal science does not aim at novelties of fact or theory and, when successful, finds none.