Response: paradigm shifts and Thomas Kuhn --- Kuhn's text is, in many ways, a good source, though his ideas are taken up from Ludwik Fleck's "Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact" and the idea of thought collectives. For our course's purpose it is very important to think of science in the Fleck/Kuhnian or let's frankly call it social constructivist way, because we cannot conceive of natural science as solely fact- and law-based. Behind every scientific epistemology, there is a social group that 'socially' conditions its members to think in specific ways, to like/disfavour specific findings and ways of approaching puzzles. This means scientific quarrels and arguments do not come naturally, but they imply fights among and between groups/schools etc. In brief: With Kuhn, we cannot distinguish epistemology from social dimensions anymore. This is why also scientific groups/fields/disciplines of different origins (and this may include countries) can be even in harsh conflicts, they can block each other's research aspirations or findings, and they can seek allies for these very purposes. And this - funnily enough - can also lead to advances in scientific knowledge production, just as well as hampering it. Kuhn's point of scientific revolutions, as he often complained later himself about how his book was received, got far too much attention.

Source author: Tim Flink tim.flink@hu-berlin.de