*TRANSCRIPTION* I thought of the book as directed to philosophers. And I think not a lot of them read it. I think it was picked up much more widely than that. It was no particular force for some time in Philosophy, although the philosophers surely knew it. But I remember, I guess it was, Peter Hempel's [Carl G. Hempel] telling me that he had been to a meeting in, I think it was, Israel in which groups had gathered and said, “That book should be burned”, and all this talk about irrationality and relativism. A thing that bothered me about the Shapere review [Shapere, Dudley (1964): “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, _The Philosophical Review,_ 73, pp. 383-94.] was all of the talk about relativism… I saw why he said that, but I thought, “If he thought a little more seriously about what relativism was and what I was saying, he would not have said anything like that”. If it was relativism, it was of an interesting sort of relativism that needed to be thought out before the tag was applied. In practice, I would say, it's not a relativistic book. And although I would have had trouble initially, I tried in the end of _Structure_ to say in what sense progress was there. I largely squeezed it out, the answer to that, talked about the accumulation of puzzles, and I think, I would now argue very strongly, that the Darwinian metaphor at the end of the book is right and should have been taken more seriously that it was. And nobody took it seriously. People passed it right by, this question of… stopping to see us as getting closer to something, but see us instead as moving away from where we were. Saying that was beyond anything I had really quite grasped until the point at which I had to really wrestle with that problem and say something. But saying that was important to me, and it led to things that have happened since. And I think it might have been picked up and recognized more.
Absolutely love that book! It was one of the highlights of studying philosophy, if he was not included in the course materials I doubt I would have come across his work.
I LEARNED ABOUT THOMAS S. KUHN: THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS WHEN I WAS STILL WORKING FOR ZAMBOANGA CITY WATER DISTRICT TREASURY SECTION AND STILL DOING MY MASTERS IN BUSINESS STUDIES BACK IN 2013 AT ATENEO DE ZAMBOANGA UNIVERSITY ZAMBOANGA CITY.
*TRANSCRIPTION*
I thought of the book as directed to philosophers. And I think not a lot of them read it. I think it was picked up much more widely than that. It was no particular force for some time in Philosophy, although the philosophers surely knew it.
But I remember, I guess it was, Peter Hempel's [Carl G. Hempel] telling me that he had been to a meeting in, I think it was, Israel in which groups had gathered and said, “That book should be burned”, and all this talk about irrationality and relativism. A thing that bothered me about the Shapere review [Shapere, Dudley (1964): “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”, _The Philosophical Review,_ 73, pp. 383-94.] was all of the talk about relativism… I saw why he said that, but I thought, “If he thought a little more seriously about what relativism was and what I was saying, he would not have said anything like that”. If it was relativism, it was of an interesting sort of relativism that needed to be thought out before the tag was applied.
In practice, I would say, it's not a relativistic book. And although I would have had trouble initially, I tried in the end of _Structure_ to say in what sense progress was there. I largely squeezed it out, the answer to that, talked about the accumulation of puzzles, and I think, I would now argue very strongly, that the Darwinian metaphor at the end of the book is right and should have been taken more seriously that it was. And nobody took it seriously. People passed it right by, this question of… stopping to see us as getting closer to something, but see us instead as moving away from where we were. Saying that was beyond anything I had really quite grasped until the point at which I had to really wrestle with that problem and say something. But saying that was important to me, and it led to things that have happened since. And I think it might have been picked up and recognized more.
His voice is exactly how I had imagined hahah I´m perplexed
Absolutely love that book! It was one of the highlights of studying philosophy, if he was not included in the course materials I doubt I would have come across his work.
Yeah, it is great! It was absolutely revolutionary, and in some ways, still quite controversial.
Great, thanks for posting PO
I LEARNED ABOUT THOMAS S. KUHN: THE STRUCTURE OF SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTIONS WHEN I WAS STILL WORKING FOR ZAMBOANGA CITY WATER DISTRICT TREASURY SECTION AND STILL DOING MY MASTERS IN BUSINESS STUDIES BACK IN 2013 AT ATENEO DE ZAMBOANGA UNIVERSITY ZAMBOANGA CITY.
COOL
💎⚡️
Cool.
0:37 sprong