, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 37–42 | Cite as

Kuhn’s philosophical conception of science as evolutionary, social, and epistemological

K. Brad Wray: Kuhn’s evolutionary social epistemology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011, xiii+229pp, £58 HB
  • Thomas Nickles
Essay Review

There has been a significant revival of interest in Thomas Kuhn’s work since his death in 1996, followed by the 50th anniversary of the publication of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions in Kuhn (1962, 1970). Now that the original controversies over Structure have largely passed into history, philosophers and (other) science studies experts are more inclined to accentuate the positive in Kuhn, acknowledging that his early work seriously altered the agenda of problems to be addressed, opened up new lines of investigation, and anticipated later developments. Few analysts consider Kuhn’s models of scientific development, early and late, to be correct, but many appreciate that having challenging and important problems to work on contributes more to the vitality of a field than a historically successful, entrenched orthodoxy that no longer produces new insights. Kuhn’s view of scientific development and decision making is similar.

Unfortunately, after Structure,Kuhn did not pay close...


  1. Andersen, Hanne, Peter Barker, and Xiang Chen. 2006. The cognitive structure of scientific revolutions. York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arthur, Brian. 2009. The nature of technology: What it is and how it evolves. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Galison, Peter. 1997. Image and logic: A material culture of microphysics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Gould, S.J., ed. 1991. The panda’s thumb of technology. In Bully for Brontosaurus, 59–75. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  5. Hacking, Ian. 1999. The social construction of what?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Kuhn, T.S. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Second edition with added “Postscript-1969,” 1970).Google Scholar
  7. Kuhn, T.S. 2000. The road since structure. ed. James Conant and John Haugeland. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. McMullin, Ernan. 1976. The fertility of theory and the unit for appraisal in science. In Essays in memory of Imre Lakatos, ed. R.S. Cohen, et al., 395–432. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rorty, Richard. 1991. Objectivity, relativism, and truth: Philosophical papers, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of Nevada, RenoRenoUSA

Personalised recommendations