In his later writings (from 1969 on), Thomas Kuhn stopped talking about "paradigms" or "disciplinary matrixes" and started talking about "theories" instead. Some Kuhnians say that from then on, when he wrote "theory", he meant "paradigm"/"disciplinary matrix". Did Kuhn say that he was doing this? If so, where in his writings?
Asked
Active
Viewed 141 times
1 Answers
3
See SST (1962), page 10:
By choosing it [the term "paradigm"] I mean to suggest that some accepted examples of actual scientific practice - examples which include law, theory, application, and instrumentation together - provide models from which spring particular coherent traditions of scientific research.
Thus, the original meaning of "paradigm" includes theories.
And see also Second Thoughts on Paradigms (1974), reprinted into The Essential Tension: Selected Studies in Scientific Tradition and Change (University Of Chicago Press (1977), page 316, where the term paradigm has been "redefined" to name
"shared [by the scientific community] examples of successful practice. [...] Those examples were its paradigms."
For the source of so-called "linguistic turn" in Kuhn's philosophy:
In the 1980s Kuhn employed the concept of lexicon and its structure as a new tool for explicating incommensurability.[...] As a consequence of the “linguistic turn”, several significant changes affect Kuhn’s philosophy, each of which is connected to the notion of taxonomic change. First of all, the terms “paradigm” and “disciplinary matrix” disappear: Kuhn preferred to employ simply the term “theory”. It is not simply a terminological change, since while the notion of paradigm is too wide to allow for talking about the lexicon of a paradigm, it is perfectly meaningful to speak about the lexicon of a theory.
Thus, according to this reading, it is still true that the notion of paradigm is wider than that of theory.
The main source is Commensurability, Comparability, Communicability (1983), reprinted as Chapter Two of The Road Since Structure: Philosophical Essays, 1970-1993 (The Univ.of Chicago Press, 2000).
Here Kuhn says [page57]: "the members of a speech community agree on a number of standard examples (paradigms)".
See also the following chapter of the same book, reprinting: Possibly Worlds in History of Science (1986).
In both chapters, the discussion is about the translations between different (and competing) scientific theories, a topic that was already present in SST.
J D
- 19,541
- 3
- 18
- 83
Mauro ALLEGRANZA
- 35,764
- 3
- 35
- 79
-
I would read this as denying that Kuhn did what I was asking about. This quote explicitly says that he changed to "theory" because "theory" is semantically narrower than "paradigm" or "disciplinary matrix". If it is narrower, then it's not the same, and is probably what everybody else understands by "theory". Do you have a different interpretation of this? – Philosopher of science Oct 12 '20 at 12:12
-
@Philosopherofscience The bibliography of SEP's entry 'Scientific Revolutions' such as in the last link of Allegranza's response, contains publications as late as 2000. I'd start there. – J D Oct 12 '20 at 14:01
-
@JD I know, I think the point of asking questions here is getting the answer without having to read all the bibliography on every subject that bugs us. On the things on which I have read the whole bibliography, I write answers, not questions. That's the most efficient way and the way in which this site should work, in my opinion. The exception would be when someone doesn't understand what they read, which is fine too. – Philosopher of science Oct 12 '20 at 15:07
-
@MauroALLEGRANZA Which writings? Basically everything after 1977, I believe. Who says that? For example, I'm almost sure, Lorenzano (personal communication, I don't know whether it's in writing). – Philosopher of science Oct 12 '20 at 15:33
-
@Philosopherofscience lol Should. To get to a destination, you can demand the map conform to the land, or you can navigate the land. You get what you pay for. Good luck! – J D Oct 12 '20 at 16:37
-
#JD Totally. Had I infinite time and perfect memory, I would eventually know it all haha :) – Philosopher of science Oct 12 '20 at 16:43
-
@MauroAllegranza- Your answer not only responds effectively to each and every point in the OP's question, but traces the linguistic development of Kuhn's lexical choices with very clear citations. This answer, to my mind, exemplifies the spirit of the SEP in top rate fashion! Thanks, – Oct 13 '20 at 03:47
-
@CharlesMSaunders - appreciate :-) – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 13 '20 at 08:16
-
@MauroALLEGRANZA So your answers are "No" and "Nowhere"? – Philosopher of science Oct 13 '20 at 15:56
-
@Philosopherofscience - Exactly; since the beginning, *theory* was not equal to *paradigm*: following critiques *paradigm* were "restricted" to "shared examples". – Mauro ALLEGRANZA Oct 14 '20 at 05:52
-
@MauroALLEGRANZA I think you have it wrong. Famously, Kuhn used "paradigm" with 22 different meanings in TSSR. From 1969 on, he cut off all but two meanings. The "shared examples" is one of the two he kept, the other being "disciplinary matrixes". So the occurrence of two different notions of paradigm in his texts is not sequential nor contradictory. – Philosopher of science Oct 14 '20 at 11:09