Select your localized edition:

Close ×

More Ways to Connect

Discover one of our 28 local entrepreneurial communities »

Be the first to know as we launch in new countries and markets around the globe.

Interested in bringing MIT Technology Review to your local market?

MIT Technology ReviewMIT Technology Review - logo

 

Unsupported browser: Your browser does not meet modern web standards. See how it scores »

Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times
By Steve Fuller
University of Chicago Press, 472 pp., $35

If historians of science had to choose one book to represent their field to the world, it would not be Thomas Kuhn’s The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Yet this is the one history-of-science book that almost everybody, from Al Gore to Bob Metcalfe, knows about, the one that is constantly invoked for its beguilingly useful concept of paradigm shifts. In Kuhn’s picture of science, investigators keep busy most of the time filling in the corners of the paradigm, or frame of reference, in which they were all trained. But over time, as anomalies that cannot be explained within the ruling paradigm accumulate, a new paradigm, or “revolution,” emerges, after which everyone wonders why they ever thought differently. The problem with Kuhn’s thesis is that he only meant it to describe one science, physics, and only during the period from 1620 to 1920-certainly not the 20th century’s era of Big Science. Yet since the publication of Structure in 1962, the concept of paradigms and revolutions has been appropriated and (mis)applied in fields from biology to social science to business, to the enormous frustration of today’s historians of science.

Books like Steve Fuller’s Thomas Kuhn: A Philosophical History for Our Times are one product of this frustration. Fuller, a sociologist at the University of Warwick in Coventry, England, is deeply disappointed by what he calls the “acritical” stance Kuhn’s work has fostered in the academy. He calls Kuhn a dwarf who stood on the shoulders of giants and attributes Structure’s ascendancy to a “comedy of errors” reminiscent of the Peter Sellers movie Being There.

Fuller’s first line of attack is to show how rooted Kuhn’s thesis was in its Cold War environs. Fuller chronicles Kuhn’s early career at Harvard, where he came under the wing of university President James Bryant Conant, a true Cold Warrior and the era’s leading advocate for Big Science. Conant’s worldview left little room for public criticism of science, and according to Fuller this was played out in Kuhn’s teaching and writing, which characterized scientific revolutions as the working-out of purely internal contradictions, free of any social, political or technological influences. Post-Structure, Fuller charges, science and technology studies (STS) has put too much emphasis on case studies of the development of narrow scientific disciplines, rarely stepping back to examine the ends and means of science in general.

Fuller’s arguments are persuasive and well-documented, and I share his view of STS. However, I have a harder time pinning the blame solely on Kuhn’s book. If Structure has assimilated science studies, surely this has something to do with the lack of effective resistance.

0 comments about this story. Start the discussion »

Tagged: Biomedicine

Reprints and Permissions | Send feedback to the editor

From the Archives

Close

Introducing MIT Technology Review Insider.

Already a Magazine subscriber?

You're automatically an Insider. It's easy to activate or upgrade your account.

Activate Your Account

Become an Insider

It's the new way to subscribe. Get even more of the tech news, research, and discoveries you crave.

Sign Up

Learn More

Find out why MIT Technology Review Insider is for you and explore your options.

Show Me
×

A Place of Inspiration

Understand the technologies that are changing business and driving the new global economy.

September 23-25, 2014
Register »