Questions to think about as you read Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions

 

 

1. What, according to Kuhn, is/should be the role of history of science in understanding the nature of scientific change?

 

 

2. What, according to Kuhn, is the role of science textbooks?

 

 

3. What, according to Kuhn, is a "paradigm"? an "anomaly"?

 

 

4. What is "normal science" and how does a new scientific field reach this phase?

 

 

5. Contrast "normal science" with "revolutionary science"? How are they related to on another?

 

 

6. What precipitates scientific revolutions and how are they resolved?

 

 

7. Does scientific change entail scientific progress according to Kuhn? Why or why not?

 

 

8. What evidence does Kuhn offer for his model of scientific change?

 

 

9. Evaluate Kuhn's position - has he convinced you that scientific change occurs in accordance with his model? Why or why not?