Kuhn does mention the shift towards the acceptance of Darwinian evolution, but he does not use this shift as an example of a revolution in the way he examines the work of Einstein or Newton, as examples. His main riff on Darwinism is to compare the possibly unsettling effects of his own ideas to those of Darwin. Just as Darwinism seemed to destroy the notion of a goal oriented, upwardly progressing evolution, so Kuhn’s ideas can be seen to destroy the idea of a science marching onward, ever closer to ‘the truth’.
I’ve always found it interesting that Kuhn does not apply his own theory to his own theory. He clearly separates ‘the study of science’ from the ‘practice of science’. Throughout the book, Kuhn argues that not only has no scientific theories have been completely correct, but that it is not even possible for a scientific theory to be completely correct. Yet at the same time, he has no such reservations about insisting that his theory represents the only way science can be done. As long as one maintains the distinction between doing science and simply explaining how science is done, this is technically true. But I find a certain weird appeal to the possible argument that Kuhn’s theory of paradigms is really just a temporary paradigm itself.
But after some of our discussions about the difference between science and technology, I’ve been thinking about what Kuhn’s ideas mean when considering that distinction. Reading this too literally could lead one to question why anyone other than scientists should care about science. While a technological innovation could have a direct impact on our lives, Kuhn’s version of science for science’s sake seems to be a game largely for the amusement of the persons involved.
