The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

Nonfiction | Reference/Text Book | Adult | Published in 1962

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Download PDF

Summary

Background

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Preface-Chapter 2

Chapters 3-5

Chapters 6-8

Chapters 9-11

Chapter 12-Postscript

Key Figures

Themes

Index of Terms

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Tools

Beta

Discussion Questions

Chapter 12-PostscriptChapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 12 Summary: “The Resolution of Revolutions”

Revolutions are resolved when a new paradigm rises to prominence. Kuhn believes old paradigms are always replaced by new ones; a paradigm does not simply fall without a new one to take its place. New paradigms solve many of the problems posed by the old paradigm, reconcile some of the anomalies that arose during the crisis period, but also—crucially—leave open new problems for scientists to work on. Paradigms dominate a scientific community because they satisfyingly explain enough of the field’s problems without solving them in their entirety. They provide enough structure and confidence to do the work of normal science, distinguishing worthwhile problems from fruitless ones and providing a shared language for scientists to communicate with. When scientists are able to take for granted the fundamentals of their field—accepted theories, methodologies, and worthwhile problems—then they are able to proceed with research and experimentation, the puzzle-solving work of normal science.

The resolution of revolutions involves a transformation of the scientific community. Scientists who accept the new paradigm experience a shift in their intellectual commitments and engage in research within the new framework. The resolution leads to a new period of normal science, characterized by stability, shared beliefs, and routine problem-solving activities within the accepted paradigm.

Kuhn’s depiction of the resolution of revolutions emphasizes the cyclical and ongoing nature of scientific development. The transition from crisis to resolution marks a significant transformation, but it also sets the stage for future developments and potential crises. The resolution of one revolution becomes the foundation for a new period of normal science, with the cycle repeating as anomalies accumulate over time.

Chapter 13 Summary: “Progress through Revolutions”

Kuhn complicates the nature of scientific progress by disputing the popularly held view of progress—one that paints science as a pursuit in which scientists move ever closer towards a single, objective understanding of truth. Rather, Kuhn proposes that scientific progress is characterized by a moving away from less satisfying and less complete views of the world rather than a moving toward one shared, correct truth. This definition, he acknowledges, may upset admirers of science, though he believes this measure of progress is still one that is worthwhile and noble.

Postscript Summary: “Postscript—1969”

Writing several years after the publication of the book, Kuhn answers some of the counterarguments raised by critics. He acknowledges the fuzziness of the term “paradigm,” noting that one astute reader pointed out he used it in more than 20 distinct ways throughout the text. As a substitute for “paradigm,” he proposes the term “exemplar,” arguing that he meant to use “paradigm” in its narrowest definition—as a term that represents a model or pattern that a group uses to establish shared thought. In the Postscript, he focuses on the importance of scientific community, zeroing in on this concept as one that was not explicitly treated in the book but as one that deserves further delineation. His theory of revolutions, he argues, is based around the sociological forces that characterize scientific communities—their shared languages, their widely held beliefs and practices, and how these are called into question, disrupted, and replaced. Overall, Kuhn acknowledges the incompleteness of his original text while arguing that his core points remain the same; while the concepts from his original work call for further development, the central premise that revolutions enable scientific progress is one he still upholds.

Chapter 12-Postscript Analysis

Chapter 12 further elaborates on The Nature of Scientific Revolutions as Kuhn delves into the process of resolution, emphasizing that the replacement of old paradigms with new ones is a fundamental characteristic of scientific development. The rise of a new paradigm is not a mere overthrow of the old; rather, it is a comprehensive solution to the problems posed by the previous paradigm. New paradigms emerge from the crucible of crises, addressing anomalies and offering a more satisfying framework for scientific inquiry. Importantly, these paradigms, while solving certain issues, intentionally leave some problems unresolved, providing fertile ground for ongoing scientific exploration. Kuhn acknowledges paradigms do not aim to solve all issues and that for a paradigm to win out, it only needs to be better than its competitors. This implies that scientific progress does not proceed by searching for perfection; rather it proceeds by comparison:

Verification is like natural selection: it picks out the most viable among the actual alternatives in a particular historical situation. Whether that choice is the best that could have been made if still other alternatives had been available or if the data had been of another sort is not a question that can usefully be asked. There are no tools to employ in seeking answers to it (146).

This casts scientific development as a competitive, imperfect, and even messy process that is characterized by fitful periods of improvement. In general, it overviews what Kuhn sees as the structure of science, and this structure is not progressive or linear but rather continues in multiple directions depending on particular paradigms. Paradigms do not necessarily build on top of one another; instead, one paradigm is explored to its limits through normal science before its epistemological limits have been reached and a new paradigm has to take its place.

Kuhn’s view challenges the linear model of progress and underscores the cyclical nature of scientific evolution. The resolution of revolutions does not represent a final destination but sets the stage for a renewed period of normal science within the new paradigm. This cyclical pattern suggests that scientific progress involves a continuous interplay between stability and upheaval, with each resolution paving the way for the next cycle of development. The open-ended nature of paradigms, leaving room for new questions and challenges, aligns with Kuhn’s broader perspective on the dynamic and evolving nature of scientific inquiry. Chapter 13, as well, presents Kuhn's nuanced perspective on scientific progress. By emphasizing a shift away from inadequate views rather than a convergence toward a single truth, Kuhn introduces a more dynamic and context-dependent understanding of progress. This view aligns with his broader thesis on the role of scientific revolutions in reshaping the foundations of knowledge. Kuhn’s conceptualization of scientific movement through revolutions highlights the transformative power of paradigm shifts and the continual refinement of scientific understanding. These ideas engage with The Importance of Crisis as an Answer to Normal Science. Science is not able to move linearly or even to progress in a concrete manner but instead must be met with many different crises in order to continue and explore other paradigms. Science must have revolutions and crises in order to move; without these, science would simply stand still and accrue many different anomalies and tensions. There is no progress in science in itself but only the intense exploration of a single set of ideas and guiding principles.

The postscript illustrates the degree to which Kuhn’s work sparked contentious debate, even in the early years after its publication. Kuhn’s acknowledgment of the varied interpretations of his use of the term “paradigm” and his proposal of “exemplar” as a more precise substitute reflect the semantic intricacies that fueled scholarly discussions. Kuhn’s willingness to address critiques and refine his terminology attests to the intellectual rigor and openness that characterized his approach, contributing to the ongoing discourse surrounding the nature of scientific revolutions and their impact on the advancement of knowledge. The Postscript serves as a snapshot of the vibrant intellectual landscape shaped by Kuhn’s seminal work, where scholars grappled with the implications of his ideas and sought to refine the conceptual framework he proposed.