Везде
Turning back to Kuhn: is normal science conservative?
Table of contents
Annotation Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Turning back to Kuhn: is normal science conservative?
Annotation
PII
S1811-833X0000616-7-1
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Ilya Kasavin 
ORCID: 0000-0002-1233-3182
Wladimir N. Porus
Edition
Volume 57 Issue 1
Pages
6-19
Abstract
The article examines the problem of interpreting normal and revolutionary science in the concept of Thomas Kuhn. It is shown that the “normal science” is the central concept of the Kuhn’s history of science, designed in accordance with the normative definition of science adopted by him. Such a story serves an internal purpose – to justify the special epistemical status of expert knowledge. But there is also an external goal – to establish professional science as an institution with special epistemological status and social function, which is situated in a center of intellectual power and property. Historians are those who are forced to constantly rewrite history – either following the methodology of “rational reconstruction” or responding to the challenges of their time. To be a “conservative” or a “revolutionary” in the history of science is a choice made not only for philosophical reasons, but also under the influence of the general socio-cultural situation of the epoch.
Keywords
normal science, scientific revolution, external and internal history of science, science in social context, social epistemology
Date of publication
01.03.2020
Number of purchasers
22
Views
663
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf

References



Additional sources and materials

    

  1. Brush S. Should History of Science Be Rated X? Science, 1975, vol. 183, p. 1164-1183.
    2. 

  2. Collins, H., Evans, R. Populism and Science. Epistemology and Philosophy of Science, 2019, 4, p. 200-218.
    3. 

  3. Conant J.B. Harvard Case Histories. In: Experimental Science Volume I-II. Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957. 639 p.
    4. 

  4. Fuller, S. New Frontiers in Science and Technology Studies. Cambridge: Polity, 2007. 232 P.
    5. 

  5. Fuller, S. Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. 490 P.
    6. 

  6. Kuhn T. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970. 210 P.
    7. 

  7. Lakatos, I., Musgrave, A. (eds.) Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1970. 282 P.
    8. 

  8. Motycka A. Relatywistyczna wizja nauki. Analiza krytyczna koncepcji T.S. Kuhna i S.E. Toulmina. Wroclaw etc., Ossolineum. 1980. S. 202.
    9. 

  9. Popper K. The Moral Responsibility of the Scientist. In: Popper K. The Myth of the Framework. L.: Routledge, 1994. P. 121-129.
    10. 

  10. Kasavin, Ilya. Towards a Social Philosophy of Science: Russian Prospects, Social Epistemology, 31 (1): 1-15/ DOI: 10.1080/02691728.2016.1227389
    11. 

  11. Kuznetsova N.I. Nauka v ee istorii. Мoscow, 1982, p. 76-77.
    12. 

  12. Kuhn Т. Logika otkritija ili psykhologia issledovanija / Kuhn Т. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Мoscow, АSТ, 2001, p. 539-592.
    13. 

  13. Porus V.N. Mezhdu filosofiej I istorijej nauki: na puti k gibkoj teorii nauchnoj razionalnosti. In: Imre Lakatos. Izbrannie proizvedenija po filosofii I metodologii nauki. Мoscow, Аkademicheskij projekt, 2008, p. 9-26.
    14. 

  14. Porus V.N. Razionalnost. Nauka. Kultura. Мoscow, 2002.
    15. 

  15. Porus V.N.. Rizar Ratio // Voprosy filosofii, 1995, issue 4, p. 127-134.
    16. 

  16. Rodnij N.I. Problema nauchnoj revoluzii d konzepzii razvitija nauki T. Kuhna. In: Konzepzii nauki v burzhuaznoj filosofii I soziologii. Moscow, 1973, p. 41-52.
    17.

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate