Thu, Nov 13 · 6:00 PM PST
Join us for a discussion of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn.
A good book may have the power to change the way we see the world, but a great book actually becomes part of our daily consciousness, pervading our thinking to the point that we take it for granted, and we forget how provocative and challenging its ideas once were—and still are. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions is that kind of book. When it was first published in 1962, it was a landmark event in the history and philosophy of science. Fifty years later, it still has many lessons to teach.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Kuhn challenged long-standing linear notions of scientific progress, arguing that transformative ideas don’t arise from the day-to-day, gradual process of experimentation and data accumulation but that the revolutions in science, those breakthrough moments that disrupt accepted thinking and offer unanticipated ideas, occur outside of “normal science,” as he called it. Though Kuhn was writing when physics ruled the sciences, his ideas on how scientific revolutions bring order to the anomalies that amass over time in research experiments are still instructive in our biotech age.
Discussion Questions (subject to revision):
Kuhn distinguishes between normal science —puzzle-solving within an accepted framework—and revolutionary science , which overturns that framework. How do you see this tension playing out in the sciences (or other fields) today?
He describes paradigm shifts as moments when anomalies accumulate until the old model can no longer contain them. Can you think of historical or modern examples of such “crisis points,” in science or elsewhere?
According to Kuhn, scientists often resist revolutionary ideas not because they’re irrational, but because their work, training, and values are bound to an existing paradigm. How does this complicate the idea of scientific “objectivity”?
The book challenges the notion of steady, cumulative progress in science. If knowledge advances through disruptive revolutions rather than gradual refinement, what does that imply about the idea of “truth” or scientific realism?
Kuhn suggests that paradigm shifts are partially incommensurable —that new and old worldviews can’t be directly compared in a neutral way. How do you interpret this idea? Do you think communication across paradigms is possible?
The term paradigm shift has entered popular culture, used far beyond science. What happens to Kuhn’s original meaning when it’s applied to art, politics, or technology? Does it still capture something real, or has it become a buzzword?
How does Kuhn’s view compare with more traditional views of scientific development (like Popper’s falsificationism or the Enlightenment ideal of rational progress)? What kind of philosophy of science does Kuhn invite us to adopt?
Kuhn was writing in a time when physics dominated the imagination of science. How might his framework apply—or fail to apply—to contemporary fields like genetics, artificial intelligence, or climate science?
If paradigms determine what counts as a valid question or a meaningful observation, what does that say about the limits of human understanding? Are there truths that lie permanently outside any paradigm?
Finally, Kuhn’s work blurs the line between discovery and interpretation. Does The Structure of Scientific Revolutions make you more skeptical about the objectivity of science—or more appreciative of its creativity and humanity?
Whether you’ve read the whole book or just want to explore some of its central ideas, you’re welcome to join!
