Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Besides the fact that Kuhn confuses the sociology of the scientific community with the philosophy of science, I think he greatly exaggerates the difference between "normal science" and "revolutionary science", a distinction that I think only applies when a particular scientific field is young and is still looking for it's foundation. When that foundation is found the foundation may be renovated and added on to, but it is never replaced.
The foundations of the various fields are:
Physics and Chemistry: Classical Mechanics
Biology: The Modern Synthesis ("Neo-Darwinism"
Geology: Plate Tectonics
Once the foundations are found, they are not replaced, they become a special case within a more complete theory
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
4 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read