The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: 50th Anniversary Edition Paperback – April 30, 2012

I am amazed how the philosophy of science could be studied. The book gives an influential ideas for knowledge people. It is an amazing book. but if you are not committed to the book, you might not finish it, because of its academic language.

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is obviously a seminal text and hardly needs a recommendation. Describing scientific progress as the result of changing paradigms, the theory has itself become a paradigm of the sciences. I even found that the distinction between normal scientific progress and scientific revolutions helped me understand the kind of work I do as a scientist in a corporate setting.Many critics have noted that the book seems to draw heavily on examples from chemistry and physics. The applicability of the theory to the social and biological sciences is less convincing.The one original criticism I would add is that, despite disagreeing with inductivism, Kuhn follows an inductive method in elaborating his theory. He cites example after example of the applicability of his account but never seems to see the value of falsification. Wouldn’t the theory be stronger if it was seen to be unfalsifiable by examples from many different sciences instead of providing evidence that it, many instances, it is very convincing?The inductive method of argument is natural to human beings and, in my opinion, appropriate in certain areas. To use it to propose a theory of science is, however, regrettable. Enumerating example after example of Kuhnian scientific revolutions is not proof that his theory is universally applicable.But, regardless of any criticism, the theory has gained such widespread acceptance that any research scientist should encounter these ideas in their original context by reading The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. The prose is fluid, the ideas important and the book a relatively light two hundred pages. Just do not read this uncritically. As a philosopher and historian of the scientific method Kuhn himself would ask of you the same.

As a whole, Kuhn's writing can often be a difficult read, but only because it is so well orchestrated that each word falls into the right place in order to provide the closest relationship between his intention and our reception. I can't recommend reading this book unless you have some understanding of scientific experimentation and research. If you fall into the researcher category, you should be required to read it.If you are considering this book, I recommend prompting yourself with some sort of summary or background before doing so; I found help from both Wikipedia as well as "the amazing world of psychiatry"--the latter is a website where a doctor reviews the book while also providing insight on the ideas. Without having certain ideas explained by these sources, I would have had considerable difficulty getting my mind into the right perspective to understand Kuhn's messages.In general, I am extremely grateful to have been introduced to this work, I may have never known it's importance to the history of science had I not read it. Throughout the read, I often found myself shocked at the revelations Kuhn made about science; I had never considered looking at science from his perspective, but now I feel humbled because he has enabled me to do so with far more objectivity and understanding. The book also reached me on another level where I found myself examining everything from Kuhn's point-of-view.Lastly, I have to address the idea that Kuhn's writing is often perceived as philosophy. It would seem to be true, however anyone would be greatly challenged to find something in "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" that is subjective. In some ways, this can be taken with a grain of salt, but his "philosophy" is beyond important to anyone involved in scientific research and/or writing.

Since "Structure" is considered by many to be the most important or influential work of philosophy of science, there is little reason to write a review about Kuhn's text, itself. The vaunted monograph is, after all, touted as being the most cited text of any intellectual work in the latter part of the twentieth century; not to mention my personal opinion, that it is among the most important works ever written. Instead, I will review the edition and the introduction by Ian Hacking. The only thing that comes to mind to say about the edition is that the text in some printings of the third edition has lettering that is wide and appears a little smudged. The text in the fourth edition appears much cleaner. As far as Ian Hacking's introduction, which is as much a tribute to the work as it is an introduction, I have found, is well worth updating from an early edition, if not replacing the older edition, then serving as a lovely complement. The reason I am of such an opinion, despite having very different views from Hacking's --then again, who actual agrees with anyone else's opinion of what Kuhn meant?--, is that Hacking places Kuhn's work into historical perspective, noting, to some extent, where history and philosophy of science was before Kuhn and, then, where history and philosophy of science was afterward. The introduction is a wonderfully compelling argument advancing the idea that everyone should be interested in reading: scientist, philosopher, historian, sociologist, anthropologist, and so on. What's more, Hacking doesn't limit the perspective taken in his introduction to a singular one, rather, in presenting context, he illustrates the richness of the text --and to the point that someone who has read the work many times might, once again, have their interest piqued, desirous of perusing the text. Finally, the introduction is beautifully written, and Hacking's interpretation shining through, picks out, what he sees as, salient features of the text. This combination of presentation and substance makes the 50th anniversary edition well worth a look, if not an acquisition for one's collection.