Talk:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

It seems like an oversight to me that the actual model isn't listed anywhere in this text. I have an animation that could be used for this or a simple static image could be added. Either way, the main image should probably be the model, not the book cover. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awfominaya (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I can't conceive how a model — to say nothing of an animated model — could contribute anything to a discussion of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Perhaps you're thinking of his book The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, which employed several diagrams .--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Can we clarify why there is a fourth edition if the author wasn't alive to edit the book? Thank you! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

An inaccurate quote was introduced in this edit in March 2016. Hairy Dude queried it this February and I've now confirmed that part of the quote was not from Kuhn. The edit introduced this sentence: "While the new paradigm is rarely as expansive as the old paradigm in its initial stages, it must nevertheless have significant promise for future problem-solving." It replaced this sentence in the real quote, to which it bears little resemblance: "Novelty for its own sake is not a desideratum in the sciences as it is in so many other creative fields." How odd. That burst of edits was all Ker64 contributed to Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

A new 2024 study published by the Royal Society tests Kuhn’s hypothesis of non-cumulative science and would be a nice addition to the “Kuhn on scientific progress” section. Can you include the following additional one or two sentences at the end of the ‘Kuhn on scientific progress’ section (and an additional citation below in the “Further reading” section at the very end of the article)?

A study of over 750 major scientific discoveries tests whether scientific progress is best explained by (paradigm-changing) revolution or (cumulative) evolution; it finds that only 1% of over 750 major discoveries have been subject to a paradigm shift, and that science overall evolves cumulatively by using three different measures of scientific progress (major discoveries, methods and fields).^[1]

“Further reading” section:

• Krauss, Alexander (2024). Debunking revolutionary paradigm shifts: evidence of cumulative scientific progress across science. Proceedings of the Royal Society A. (480).^[2]

Paradigm Changes (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Also Erwin (2026): "Geological Revolutions in the Late 20th and Early 21st Centuries Plate Tectonics". Basically, it very much looks like Kuhn analyzed "the" (Copernican-Newtonian) Scientific Revolution, and incorrectly generalized his findings acvross all science at all times. Every single study that has been done roundly rejects the Kuhnian theory.

This was already shown to be much the same for all of biology since its inception (as a science, and different from "natural philsophy/natural history") by Ernst Mayr in a much earlier (1980s?) essay which was later included in "What makes biology unique".

The article must be completely overhauled. All the philosophical to-and-fro is as meaningless sophistry as discussing the length of the mane of an invisible pink unicorn. Kuhnian revolutions are a fiction. There is literally zero evidence suggesting that the purported developments of scientific thought are anything other than a one-off event, and even this single "revolution" (which took 200 years) is not what Kuhn hallucinated it to be.

tl:dr: Thomas Kuhn was a sloppy and incompetent scholar who played fast and loose with his evidence, and was not above inventing "evidence" out of thin air. He was apparently completely incapable of understanding what science actually is - an ignoramus and intellectual snake-oil salesman. His theory is demonstrable nonsense, about as well-supported by actual scientific evidence as phlogiston or homeopathy, and deserves to be discarded. The opinions of other simiarly science-ignorant "thinkers" are only relevant as an example how vulnerable philosophy is to "guru-cultism"; they deserve to be treated as WP:FRINGE and mere sophistry, given that they are demonstrably not supported by any evidence at all (other than the (evidence" Kuhn invented). Heteralocha (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply