In his analysis of the book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn, Godfrey-Smith (2003) argues that the book has played a critical role toward defining the overall structure of arguments not only for scientists but also for philosophers and historians. On his part, Kuhn (1962) seeks to describe science as “the puzzle-solving activity we have just examined, is a highly cumulative enterprise” (p.52). From both analyses, I was able to take note of the fact that science can be considered as being holistic in nature. It seeks to bring out the general understanding that it does not only build on personal understanding but attempts to offer lasting solutions to critical problems affecting the world.
On the other hand, I was able to take note of the fact that the arguments that can be seen from Kuhn’s book, as well as, the analysis by Godfrey-Smith reflect on an argument that science does not focus on a paradigm. That means that science is driven by the need for having to develop key solutions to challenges affecting the society, as this is part of the ‘puzzle-solving activity.' The outcome is that this would be in a much more likely platform to reflect on positive change within the overall structure of the society.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The following are some of the key questions that would guide discussions:
Considering that Thomas Kuhn believes that science does not need a paradigm, what does not it need to serve as a guide to providing key solutions?
How would you describe normal science based on the analysis given by Kuhn as part of his evaluation of how science affects society?
Can science be considered as a philosophy?
References
Godfrey-Smith, P. (2003). An Introduction to the Philosophy of Science: Theory and Reality . University of Chicago, Chicago, CH: Chicago.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). Thomas S. Kuhn The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Retrieved from https://archive.org/details/ThomasS.KuhnTheStructureOfScientificRevolutions/page/n65
