From Fleck's denkstil to Kuhn's paradigm: Conceptual schemes and incommensurability
International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (1):75 – 92 (2003)
Abstract
This article argues that the limited influence of Ludwik Fleck's ideas on philosophy of science is due not only to their indirect dissemination by way of Thomas Kuhn, but also to an incommensurability between the standard conceptual framework of history and philosophy of science and Fleck's own more integratedly historico-social and praxis-oriented approach to understanding the evolution of scientific discovery. What Kuhn named "paradigm" offers a periphrastic rendering or oblique translation of Fleck's Denkstil/Denkkollektiv , a derivation that may also account for the lability of the term "paradigm". This was due not to Kuhn's unwillingness to credit Fleck but rather to the cold war political circumstances surrounding the writing of The Structure of Scientific Revolutions . Following a discussion of Fleck's anatomical allusions, I include a brief discussion of Aristotle (on menstruation and darkened mirrors) and conclude with a reference to the productivity of error in Mach and Nietzsche.Author's Profile
DOI
10.1080/02698590305236
My notes
Similar books and articles
The Role of Skill in Experimentation: Reading Ludwik Fleck's Study of the Wasserman Reaction as an Example of Ian Hacking's Experimental Realism.David Stump - 1988 - PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:302 - 308.
Stabilizing and changing phenomenal worlds: Ludwik Fleck and Thomas Kuhn on scientific literature.Stig Brorson & Hanne Andersen - 2001 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 32 (1):109-129.
Kuhn's paradigm as a parable for the cold war: Incommensurability and its discontents from Fuller's tale of Harvard to Fleck's unsung lvov.Babette Babich - 2003 - Social Epistemology 17 (2 & 3):99 – 109.
Challenging Incommensurability: What We Can Learn from Ludwik Fleck for the Analysis of Configurational Innovation.Alexander Peine - 2011 - Minerva 49 (4):489-508.
Ludwik Fleck's 'on the question of the foundations of medical knowledge'.Thaddeus J. Trenn - 1981 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 6 (3):237-256.
Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions revisited.Vasso P. Kindi - 1995 - Journal for General Philosophy of Science / Zeitschrift für Allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie 26 (1):75 - 92.
“… The art of shaping a democratic reality and being directed by it …”—philososophy of science in turbulent times.Johannes Fehr - 2012 - Studies in East European Thought 64 (1-2):81-89.
The reading of Ludwik Fleck: Questions of sources and impetus.Eva Hedfors - 2006 - Social Epistemology 20 (2):131 – 161.
Reconstructing Scientific Revolutions: Thomas S. Kuhn’s Philosophy of Science.Paul Hoyningen-Huene - 1993 - University of Chicago Press.
Thought styles and paradigms—a comparative study of Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn.Nicola Mößner - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (2):362–371.
Analytics
Added to PP
2009-01-28
Downloads
126 (#100,847)
6 months
3 (#224,882)
2009-01-28
Downloads
126 (#100,847)
6 months
3 (#224,882)
Historical graph of downloads
Author's Profile
Citations of this work
Thought styles and paradigms—a comparative study of Ludwik Fleck and Thomas S. Kuhn.Nicola Mößner - 2011 - Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 42 (2):362–371.
Birth of a brain disease: science, the state and addiction neuropolitics.Scott Vrecko - 2010 - History of the Human Sciences 23 (4):52-67.
Ludwik Fleck and the concept of style in the natural sciences.Claus Zittel - 2012 - Studies in East European Thought 64 (1-2):53-79.
On the historical origins of the contemporary notion of incommensurability: Paul Feyerabend's assault on conceptual conservatism.Eric Oberheim - 2005 - Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 36 (2):363-90.
References found in this work
Leviathan and the Air-Pump: Hobbes, Boyle, and the Experimental Life.Steven Shapin & Simon Schaffer - 1985 - Princeton University Press.