The old historiography considered only cumulative, positive scientific results. Koyré’s one instead
took into account both successes and errors of scientists in the context of their culture. In 1962,
Kuhn introduced a completely new conception of the scientific events based on a ceaseless succession
of paradigms and revolutions. The success of his book, The structure of scientific revolutions,
was immediate. But more than the “revolution” cited in title of the book, his main concept was the
“paradigm”, which is the set of the concepts ruling the scientific practice of a given community.
Although largely accepted, Kuhn’s scheme was not spared by criticisms, also from scholars favorable
to it. Therefore, throughout his life he was forced to reassess it several times, although
never stopping to consider it valid, even when he renounced to apply it to the study of the birth of
quanta. In this work, he opposed to the revolution of quanta that previous historians fixed in the
years 1900-01, a sort of continuity between the Boltzmann’s classical concepts and the Planck’s
mathematics. The debate on Kuhn’s historiographic ideas has been wide and rich in intellectual
stimuli. Actually, he took advantage of those stimuli to develop a better definition of his system.
Towards the end of his life, with the aim to give a final version to his original scheme, he went back
to consider a parallelism between the history of science and the biological evolutionism, already
introduced in SSR. The present paper is aimed at analyzing these Kuhn’s suggestions on the methodology
of history of science; we will provide an interpretive framework linking each of his different
historiographical suggestion with a specific scientific theory; i.e. respectively, the Newtonian
mechanics, the thermodynamics and the Darwinian theory of evolution. In other words, we
wanted to show that Kuhn always made use of historical categories corresponding to the basic notions
of a particular scientific theory.
References
[1]
Brush, S. G. (1983). Statistical Physics and Atomic Theory of Matter. Princeton: Princeton U.P., 21.
[2]
Caneva, K. L. (2000). Possible Kuhns in the History of Science. Anomalies and Incommensurable Paradigms. Studies in Histyory and Philosophy of Science, 31, 87-124.
[3]
Cassirer, E. (1906). Das Erkenntnisproblem in der Philosophie und Wissenschaft der neueren Zeit. Berlin: B. Cassirer.
[4]
Cerreta, P. (1994a). II confronto tra le storiografie di Kuhn e di Koyré. In C. Vinti (Ed.), Alexander Koyré. L’avventura Intellettuale (pp. 647-657). Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane.
[5]
Cerreta, P. (1994b). Kuhn’s Analysis of History of Black Body: From “Paradigm” to “Groups of Concepts”. In C. Cellucci et al. (Eds.), Atti del Congresso Logica e filosofia della scienza: Problemi e prospettive. Lucca: Edizioni ETS.
[6]
Cerreta, P. (1995a). Kuhn’s Interpretation of Boltzmann’s Statistic Heredity in Planck. In G. Garola, & A. Rossi (Eds.), The Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Historical Analysis and Open Questions (pp. 139-146). Lecce: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
[7]
Cerreta, P. (1995b). Historiographical Paradigms: Koyré, Kuhn and Beyond. In L. Kovacs, (Ed.), History of Science in Teaching Physics (pp. 68-73). Szombathely: Studia Physica Savariensia.
[8]
Cerreta, P. (2002). The Birth of Quanta: A Historiographic Confrontation. In H. Kragh, G. Vanpaemel, & P. Marage (Eds.), Proceedings of the XXth International Congress of History of Science, Vol XIV, History of Modern Physics (pp. 249-259). Turnhout: Brepols.
[9]
Cerreta, P., & Drago, A. (1991). Matematica e conoscenza storica. La interpretazione di Kuhn della storia della scienza. In L. Magnani (Ed.), Conoscenza e Matematica. Milano: Marcos y Marcos.
[10]
Cerreta, P., & Drago, A. (2004). II programma storiografico di Kuhn caratterizzato secondo due programmi di ricerca sui fondamenti della scienza. In P. Tucci, A. Garuccio, & M. Nigro (Eds.), Atti del XXIII Congresso nazionale di Storia della fisica e dell’astronomia (pp. 120-130). Bari: Progedit.
[11]
Chenoweth, E., & Stephen, M. (2011). Why Civil Resistance Works. Columbia: Columbia U.P.
[12]
Corry, L. (1993). Kuhnian Issues, Scientific Revolutions and the History of Mathematics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 24, 95-101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0039-3681(93)90026-G
[13]
De Regt, H. (1996). Philosophy of the Kinetic Theory of Gases. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 47, 31-62.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/47.1.31
[14]
Drago, A. (1987). An Effective Definition of Incommensurability. VIII Congress on Logic, Methodology and Phil. Sci., 4, 159-162.
[15]
Drago, A. (1994). Interpretazione delle frasi caratteristiche di Koyré e loro estensione alla storia della fisica dell’ottocento. In C. Vinti (Ed.), Alexandre Koyré. L’avventura Intellettuale (pp. 657-691). Napoli: ESI.
[16]
Drago, A. (1996). Caratterizzazione strutturale delle storiografie della scienza di Koyré, Kuhn e seguenti. In A. Rossi (Ed.), Atti XIV e XV Congr. Naz. St. Fisica (pp. 159-167). Lecce: Conte.
[17]
Drago, A. (2010). Le rivoluzioni non violente del secolo scorso. Roma: Nuova Cultura.
[18]
Drago, A. (2016). The Revolutionary Role Played by Koyré in the Historiography of Science. In R. Pisano (Ed.), Hypotheses and Perspectives within History and Philosophy of Science. Hommage to Alexandre Koyré 1964-2014. Berlin: Springer. (Forthcoming)
[19]
Einstein, A. (1906). Zur Theorie der Lichterzeugung und Lichtabsorbition. Annalen der Physik, 20, 199.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/andp.19063250613
[20]
Gernand, H. W., & Reedy, W. Y. (1986). Planck, Kuhn and Scientific Revolutions. Journal of the History of Ideas, 47, 469-485. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2709664
[21]
Grattan-Guinness, I. (1990). Convolutions in French Mathematics 1800-1840 (Vol. 1, p. 6). Berlin: Birkhauser.
[22]
Klein, M. J., Shimony, A., & Pinch, T. J. (1979). Paradigm Lost? A Review Symposium. Isis, 70, 430-434.
[23]
Kokowski, M. (2006). A Meta-History of Science and Methodology of the History of Science Urgently Needed! The Global and the Local: The History of Science and the Cultural Integration of Europe. Proceedings of the 2nd ICESHS, Cracow, Poland, 6-9 September 2006, 856-863.
http://www.2iceshs.cyfronet.pl/2ICESHS_Proceedings/Chapter_27/R-19_Kokowski.pdf
[24]
Koyré, A. (1966). études Galiléennes (1939). Paris: Hermann.
[25]
Kuhn, T. S. (1957). The Copernican Revolution. Harvard: Harvard U.P.
[26]
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[27]
Kuhn, T. S. (1970a). Alexander Koyré and the History of Science. Encounter, XXXIV, 69.
[28]
Kuhn, T. S. (1970b). Reflections on My Critics. In I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 231-278). London: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434.011
[29]
Kuhn, T. S. (1970c). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 2nd ed., Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1-3.
[30]
Kuhn, T. S. (1974). Second Thoughts on Paradigms. In F. Suppe (Ed.), The Structure of Scientific Theories (pp. 459-482). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
[31]
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). Mathematical and Experimental Traditions in the Development of the Physical Sciences. The Essential Tension, op. cit., 31-65.
[32]
Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The Concept of Cause and the Development of Physics. In The Essential Tension (pp. 21-30). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago.
[33]
Kuhn, T. S. (1978). Black Body Theory and the Quantum Discontinuity, 1894-1912. Oxford, New York: Clarendon Press.
[34]
Kuhn, T. S. (1980). The Halt and the Blind: Philosophy and History of Science. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, 31, 181-192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bjps/31.2.181
[35]
Kuhn, T. S. (1984). Revisiting Planck. Historical Studies in the Natural Sciences, 14, 231-252.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/27757534
[36]
Kuhn, T. S. (2000). The Road since Structure. In The Road since Structure (pp. 90-104). Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.
[37]
Larvor, B. (2003). Why Did Kuhn’s Structure of Scientific Revolution Cause a Fuss? Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 34, 369-390.
[38]
Mastermann, M. (1970). The Nature of Paradigm. In I. Lakatos, & A. Musgrave, Eds., Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge (pp. 59-89). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[39]
Moore, P. (1982). Revolution in Science: 20 Years on. New Scientist, 95, 372; New York Times Book Review, 4 October 1992.
[40]
Planck, M. (1906). Vorlesungen über die Theorie der Warmestrahlung. Annalen der Physik, 30, 211.
[41]
Wray, K. B. (2007). Kuhnian Revolutions Revisited. Synthèse, 158, 61-73.
