Authors
Panos Theodorou
University of Crete
Abstract
Kuhn uses the distinction between `(simple) seeing', and `seeing as' in order to claim that among competing paradigms there cannot be found any middle (experiential) ground; nothing `same' can be located behind such radically different paradigm-worlds. He claims that scientists do not see a common something as this thing at one time and as that thing at another. Each time scientists simply see what they see. To claim the contrary is to claim that scientists arrive at their paradigmatic experiences of the world due to an interpretation of something `same' beyond the paradigms,and Kuhn rejects this. The question of whether a common ground can be found behind two or more different paradigmatic world-views relates to many issues in philosophy of science and in general epistemology (e.g., realism-idealism, relativism-objectivism, etc.). As a first approach to these, in this paper I examine the presuppositions of Kuhn's claim, its consistency in the exposition, and its overall viability. I conclude that the actual way in which Kuhn refers to the historical examples he examines undermines his explicit thesis. But also the paradox he himself recognizes in his thought that `though the world does not change with a change of paradigm, the scientists afterward works in a different world' can be solved only if we start to think seriously about the necessity and nature of a `same in the different' behind the competing paradigmatic world-experiences.
Keywords gestalt switch  interpretation  Kuhn  paradigm shift  seeing-as
Categories (categorize this paper)
DOI 10.1023/B:JGPS.0000035152.70864.03
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 70,337
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

[Appeal to Parents].[author unknown] - 1893 - Mind 2 (7):420-424.
Postscript.[author unknown] - 1964 - Vivarium 2 (1):161-162.
Postscript.[author unknown] - 1976 - Philosophy 51 (198):379-379.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

No citations found.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Ii. A Reply to Siegel on Kuhnian Relativism.Gerald Doppelt - 1980 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 23 (1):117 – 123.
A Kuhnian Model of Falsifiability.Mark A. Stone - 1991 - British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 42 (2):177-185.
Paradigms and Possibilities.Graham McFee - 2007 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 1 (1):58 – 77.
Subjective Views of Kuhn.Peter Achinstein - 2001 - Perspectives on Science 9 (4):423-432.
Interpreting Thomas Kuhn as a Response-Dependence Theorist.Nathaniel Goldberg - 2011 - International Journal of Philosophical Studies 19 (5):729 - 752.
Did Kuhn Kill Logical Empiricism?George A. Reisch - 1991 - Philosophy of Science 58 (2):264-277.
Thomas Kuhn on the Existence of the World.Michel Ghins - 2003 - International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 17 (3):265 – 279.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2009-01-28

Total views
44 ( #257,396 of 2,508,057 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
2 ( #276,895 of 2,508,057 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes