I only very recently learnt that some of the main ideas that are attributed to Thomas Kuhn have their origins in the works of Michael Polanyi[1].
"... Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." [2]
If you haven't checked out Polanyi yet, look up The Tacit Dimension — a very short book that talks about "tacit knowledge" (also discussed in uky.edu page, with attribution).
Thanks for pointing this out. It should be said, however, that Kuhn did cite Polanyi pretty extensively.
Related: Destin, at the Smarter Every Day YouTube channel, has been kind of sliding into the same distinction Polanyi outlined, between "tacit knowledge" and explicit knowledge. Destin would label those "understanding" and "knowledge", respectively, but he has a lot of neat demonstrations of this distinction, e.g. riding a backwards bicycle[0], or hovering a helicopter[1].
Well, if Kuhn cited Polanyi "pretty extensively" this wouldn't happen; citing from the Wikipedia (I know; there's a reference) entry:
"Supporters of Polanyi charged Kuhn with plagiarism, as it was known that Kuhn attended several of Polanyi's lectures, and that the two men had debated endlessly over epistemology before either had achieved fame. After the charge of plagiarism, Kuhn acknowledged Polanyi in the Second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.[7] Despite this intellectual alliance, Polanyi's work was constantly interpreted by others within the framework of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, much to Polanyi's (and Kuhn's) dismay"
I wholeheartedly recommend reading the primary text by Kuhn because it's both well-written as well as historically interesting. But for those with a short time budget, this short playlist[0] covers his ideas in a very clear and concise manner.
The same applies to Popper and Feyerabend (at least in German). Popper's writings are pretty clear in general in comparison to other philosophers of his time.
The amusing thing about this book is that the main idea was a big deal for philosophers of science, but a commonplace notion for historians of science. That’s because the former had no idea how science worked, but the latter were intimate with its actual development. Kuhn was an excellent historian of science: his Copernican Revolution is his real masterpiece.
Interesting that the term "Paradigm Shift" (a mainstream term that Thomas Kuhn established with this book) first appears in Chapter 8, then in Ch. 10 and 11 of the summary.
A lot of densely-written stuff to read through before coming to the heart of the matter.
I don't know for a student but given the density of the primary text (okay, I read that long ago, but that's what I remember anyways) it seems to me to be a pretty good condensate.
Some climate denialists used this stuff as talking points on why climate change is a hoax.
What bothers me about this kind of material is it's such good material for someone who's not honest for "one upping" or saying "oh this is just another example of [insert phenomenon]". Without looking at the substance.
> What bothers me about this kind of material is it's such good material for someone who's not honest for "one upping" or saying "oh this is just another example of [insert phenomenon]". Without looking at the substance.
Math also has this property. In particular, and famously, statistics.
The problem isn't "this kind of material", as you put it, but the fact that the debates in question (e.g. climate change denial) are waged on appearance rather than substance; quacks get employed to publish studies that look "sciency", and appear to strengthen the arguments of special interests. More generally, misusing "this kind of material", and getting away with it, is precisely the same kind of crime as p-hacking.
And please let me offer you a gentle nudge: try not to think of ideas in terms of "this kind of material"; down that path, there are sometimes book burnings.
We all intellectually group things together by apparent semblance, but we should all also remember that this grouping is a time-saving tool, not a truth-finding tool. If you want to actually determine the validity of a study's statistical findings, the fact that its authors are from a prestigious university is absolutely no indication of truth. Similarly for any theoretical work, whether in empirical science or, say, history. The measure of truth is in the work, not around it.
Which is to say, don't judge books by their covers, even though obviously we all do, all the time.
"... Although they used different terminologies, both Kuhn and Michael Polanyi believed that scientists' subjective experiences made science a relativized discipline. Polanyi lectured on this topic for decades before Kuhn published The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." [2]
If you haven't checked out Polanyi yet, look up The Tacit Dimension — a very short book that talks about "tacit knowledge" (also discussed in uky.edu page, with attribution).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Polanyi
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Kuhn#Polanyi%E2%80%93Ku...
Related: Destin, at the Smarter Every Day YouTube channel, has been kind of sliding into the same distinction Polanyi outlined, between "tacit knowledge" and explicit knowledge. Destin would label those "understanding" and "knowledge", respectively, but he has a lot of neat demonstrations of this distinction, e.g. riding a backwards bicycle[0], or hovering a helicopter[1].
[0] https://youtu.be/MFzDaBzBlL0
[1] https://youtu.be/eXR1olg_I0w
"Supporters of Polanyi charged Kuhn with plagiarism, as it was known that Kuhn attended several of Polanyi's lectures, and that the two men had debated endlessly over epistemology before either had achieved fame. After the charge of plagiarism, Kuhn acknowledged Polanyi in the Second edition of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.[7] Despite this intellectual alliance, Polanyi's work was constantly interpreted by others within the framework of Kuhn's paradigm shifts, much to Polanyi's (and Kuhn's) dismay"
[0]https://youtu.be/sOGZEZ96ynI
A lot of densely-written stuff to read through before coming to the heart of the matter.
That’s not a summary. To me at least.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131223045812/https://www.uky.e...
What bothers me about this kind of material is it's such good material for someone who's not honest for "one upping" or saying "oh this is just another example of [insert phenomenon]". Without looking at the substance.
Math also has this property. In particular, and famously, statistics.
The problem isn't "this kind of material", as you put it, but the fact that the debates in question (e.g. climate change denial) are waged on appearance rather than substance; quacks get employed to publish studies that look "sciency", and appear to strengthen the arguments of special interests. More generally, misusing "this kind of material", and getting away with it, is precisely the same kind of crime as p-hacking.
And please let me offer you a gentle nudge: try not to think of ideas in terms of "this kind of material"; down that path, there are sometimes book burnings.
We all intellectually group things together by apparent semblance, but we should all also remember that this grouping is a time-saving tool, not a truth-finding tool. If you want to actually determine the validity of a study's statistical findings, the fact that its authors are from a prestigious university is absolutely no indication of truth. Similarly for any theoretical work, whether in empirical science or, say, history. The measure of truth is in the work, not around it.
Which is to say, don't judge books by their covers, even though obviously we all do, all the time.