Thomas Kuhn and Interdisciplinary Conversation: Why Historians and Philosophers of Science Stopped Talking to One Another

7Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

This paper looks back to Thomas S. Kuhn’s seminal work of 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, as a landmark in the relations between history and philosophy of science. I propose that Kuhn’s book, though read both by historians and by philosophers, contributed to the process by which they have developed largely separate concerns in recent decades. Kuhn was a committed participant in interdisciplinary discourse, and yet his book was read in fundamentally different ways in the two disciplinary communities. To understand how this happened, I propose that we need to modify Kuhn’s own categories of historical analysis to recognize the bearing on disciplinary communities of factors that he discounted as “external.” I argue that philosophers and historians approached Kuhn’s work with preoccupations shaped by the cultural and political context of Cold War debates about science, though that context yielded very different orientations in the two communities.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Golinski, J. (2012). Thomas Kuhn and Interdisciplinary Conversation: Why Historians and Philosophers of Science Stopped Talking to One Another. In Boston Studies in the Philosophy and History of Science (Vol. 263, pp. 13–28). Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1745-9_2

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free