Talk:Thomas Kuhn

The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), section
I (temporarily) restored a previous version of this section, see here, because I fail to see why the removal (by User:Y-S.Ko) of quotes from secondary sources, and removing page numbers is an improvement. -- Mdd (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Comparing the two versions here I noticed, that the last quote is slightly expanded with an extra line. In this case I personally expand the description from "p. 150 cited in: Stuart A. Umpleby and Eric B. Dent. (1999)..." to something like "p. 150, mosty cited in: Stuart A. Umpleby and Eric B. Dent. (1999)...". -- Mdd (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * These two quotes share the same phrase. (One of them is remarked by Mdd):
 * [The] most fundamental aspect of the incommensurability of competing paradigms... is that "the proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds."
 * As cited in: Scott L. Pratt (2009) Logic: Inquiry, Argument, and Order. p. 8.
 * In a sense that I am unable to explicate further, the proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds. One contains constrained bodies that fall slowly, the other pendulums that repeat their motions again and again. In one, solutions are compounds, in the other mixtures. One is embedded in a flat, the other in a curved, matrix of space. Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction. Again, that is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas they see different things, and they see them in different relations one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another.
 * p. 150 cited in: Stuart A. Umpleby and . (1999) "The Origins and Purposes of Several Traditions. in Systems Theory and Cybernetics". Cybernetics & Systems, 30.2 (1999): 79-103.
 * Therefore, I combined them like this:
 * These examples point to the third and most fundamental aspect of the incommensurability of competing paradigms. In a sense that I am unable to explicate further, the proponents of competing paradigms practice their trades in different worlds. One contains constrained bodies that fall slowly, the other pendulums that repeat their motions again and again. In one, solutions are compounds, in the other mixtures. One is embedded in a flat, the other in a curved, matrix of space. Practicing in different worlds, the two groups of scientists see different things when they look from the same point in the same direction. Again, that is not to say that they can see anything they please. Both are looking at the world, and what they look at has not changed. But in some areas they see different things, and they see them in different relations one to the other. That is why a law that cannot even be demonstrated to one group of scientists may occasionally seem intuitively obvious to another.
 * XII. The Resolution of Revolutions
 * I removed page numbers, because of inconsistency in citation, some is like "p. 52.", other is like "As cited in: ...". The other reason is lack of the information about which edition used. Kuhn's book has four editions! (1962, 1970, 1996, 2012.) I think page number can be different in different editions. I think page number without information about the edition is not helpful. However, I think the chapter is identical even in different editions. Therefore, if the chapter is used as a citation, the users of Wikiquote will find this more helpful, regardless of the edition which they use. -- Y-S.Ko (talk) 15:04, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining. I re-added the quotes you added in the format with the available secondary sources. With page numbers it is quite simple: Page numbers should refer to the 1st edition (or to other editions if available). I think incomplete is better than removal for the sake of consistency. --Mdd (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It is still unclear to me why more quotes seem to be have been removed with the addition you made. Am I still missing something here? -- Mdd (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Mdd asked the question. I removed the quotes:
 * Without commitment to a paradigm there can be no science... the study of paradigms is what prepares a student for membership in a particular scientific community. Men whose research is based on shared paradigms are committed to the same rules and standards for scientific practice. That commitment and the apparent consensus it produces are prerequisites for normal science, i.e., for the genesis and continuation of a particular research tradition. ...scientific revolutions are inaugurated by a growing sense that an existing paradigm has ceased to function adequately in the exploration of an aspect of nature.
 * p. 11.
 * I searched "Without commitment to a paradigm there can be no science..." because I cannot find this in the book. I cannot find original source. Is this quote really in the book? I searched "the study of paradigms is what prepares a student for membership" also. However, I failed. Is this quote really in the book? I don't think this is included in Kuhn's book.
 * By the way, this quote is written twice:
 * Somehow, the practice of astronomy, physics, chemistry or biology normally fails to evoke the controversies over fundamentals that today seem endemic among, say, psychologists or sociologists. Attempting to discover the source of that difference led me to recognize the role in scientific research of what I have since called “paradigms.” These I take to be universally recognized scientific achievements that for a time provide model problems and solutions for a community of practitioners.
 * I find this quote in the Preface. However, before I edited Kuhn article, the citation is "p. 48." Is the information about page numbers in original Kuhn article reliable? I don't think so.--Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:44, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update. I have split the first quote in two, removed the double quote, and checked with the 2012 edition online at Google books. I hope this is fine now, and I restored all your additions. -- Mdd (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)