The Irony of "Scientific Revolutions"
I will admit that when I initially started The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, I was not particularly drawn in. However, when I arrived home for Spring Break, my parents found the book on the table. Apparently, they have both read it, so they gave me a lecture about its vital importance to understanding the changes in the social system... Anyway, I started again with renewed interest, but I got bogged down again.
After careful consideration, I think I have determined the central problem for me, as a non-scientist, trying to read this book. It is, as I'm sure others have discovered, that I don't know anything about the scientific revolutions that he uses to illustrate his points. As he natters on about the gradual evolution of the Leyden jar, I'm reading along thinking, "What in the name of Tarnation is a Leydon jar, what does it do, and why do I care!!" Although I can understand the larger points that he is making, and their application to the wider world (at least I think I do), I slow way down as I try to make it through pages of examples I don't understand illustrating his points.
I find the difficulty of understanding the book ironic. Kuhn's book purports to be about the process of shifting between scientific paradigms, and he claims that old paradigms, although rejected by modern science still have validity in the context in which they were created. He also mentions that science frowns on the writing of books for the lay audience. Since his is supposed to be a cross-paradigmatic book, it should escape from the constrains of writing for a scientifically-informed audience, especially because he claims no such audience exists. Unfortunately, he does not seem to be able to escape from the confines of his field's convention, and he too falls into the trap of writing exclusively for an audience that knows what he's talking about.
(BTW, can someone explain a Leyden Jar?)
posted by lennearb @ 1:49 AM
<< Home