Talk:The Structure of Scientific Revolutions

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Structure of Scientific Revolutions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days

This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

History of Science Mid‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Literature / Science / Contemporary High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Philosophical literature Philosophy of science Contemporary philosophy Books

The contents of the Exemplar (Kuhn) page were merged into The Structure of Scientific Revolutions on 9 June 2016. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

Can this article get another review from the task forces? Looks like a solid article; easily could become a GA with minor modifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hal06 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to nominate the article for GA - if you like. I wouldn't do that myself. There are too many things I dislike about it, including the way material is organized in the "influence" and "criticisms" sections. To me it feels wrong to divide article content that way. There should be a single section, titled "Reception", that would mention both positive and negative views of the book. The section should be divided into subsections on reviews in scientific journals, popular press reviews, and evaluations in books, with the material within each of those subsections being chronological. That would be the logical approach. Some other approach has been followed here, one that seems didactic - an attempt to convey to the reader what whoever wrote it personally deems the most important information, in the order they find most appropriate. Instead of following that unfortunate approach, the material should simply be organized in a logical way, with no attempt at imposing a particular viewpoint on that material on the reader.

talk) 02:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:40, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

I may well. The bad thing about the existing organization of the sections on the influence and reception of Kuhn's book, and the criticism it received, is that it makes it very difficult to add new material. There is a rigid arrangement that new material cannot so easily fit within. For example, I'd like to add something about the way Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont discuss Kuhn's book in

talk) 00:37, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

It seems like an oversight to me that the actual model isn't listed anywhere in this text. I have an animation that could be used for this or a simple static image could be added. Either way, the main image should probably be the model, not the book cover. No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awfominaya (talk • contribs) 15:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't conceive how a model — to say nothing of an animated model — could contribute anything to a discussion of Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Perhaps you're thinking of his book The Copernican Revolution: Planetary Astronomy in the Development of Western Thought, which employed several diagrams .--SteveMcCluskey (talk) 02:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can we clarify why there is a fourth edition if the author wasn't alive to edit the book? Thank you! --ExperiencedArticleFixer (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An inaccurate quote was introduced in this edit in March 2016. Hairy Dude queried it this February and I've now confirmed that part of the quote was not from Kuhn. The edit introduced this sentence: "While the new paradigm is rarely as expansive as the old paradigm in its initial stages, it must nevertheless have significant promise for future problem-solving." It replaced this sentence in the real quote, to which it bears little resemblance: "Novelty for its own sake is not a desideratum in the sciences as it is in so many other creative fields." How odd. That burst of edits was all Ker64 contributed to Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 15:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]