Abstract
In his late years, Thomas Kuhn became interested in the process of scientific specialization, which does not seem to possess the destructive element that is characteristic of scientific revolutions. It therefore makes sense to investigate whether and how Kuhn’s insights about specialization are consistent with, and actually fit, his model of scientific progress through revolutions. In this paper, I argue that the transition toward a new specialty corresponds to a revolutionary change for the group of scientists involved in such a transition. I will clarify the role of the scientific community in revolutionary changes and characterize the incommensurability across specialties as possessing both semantic and methodological aspects. The discussion of the discovery of the structure of DNA will serve both as an illustration of my main argument and as reply to one criticism raised against Kuhn—namely, that his model cannot capture cases of revolutionary yet non-disruptive episodes of scientific progress. Revisiting Kuhn’s ideas on specialization will shed new light on some often overlooked features of scientific change.
Highlights
In his late years, Thomas Kuhn became interested in the process of scientific specialization, which does not seem to possess the destructive element that is characteristic of scientific revolutions
In SSR, scientific revolutions are defined as changes of paradigm, it is crucial to understand that a paradigm is something that the members of a scientific community have reached a consensus upon and which guides their research
This paper has developed a neo-Kuhnian model of specialization by examining Kuhn’s late writings, as well as some recent interpretations of Kuhn’s philosophy, such as Wray’s
Summary
In The structure of scientific revolutions (Kuhn 1996 [1962], on SSR), Kuhn describes the historical development of science as being characterized by occasional disruptive episodes, called scientific revolutions. Kuhn regards the proliferation of new specialties as an essential process for increasing the problemsolving power of science: the more specialties there are, the more the general scientific enterprise increases its breadth. The phenomenon of specialization does not seem to have the same ‘destructive character’ of a scientific revolution While the latter represents a rupture with the scientific tradition, the emergence of a new specialty does not discard its parentdiscipline(s). The aim of this paper is to revisit Kuhn’s ideas in order to develop a more robust view on scientific specialization and to shed new light on some often overlooked features of scientific change. 5, I explain how the view on specialization developed in this paper derives from an attentive analysis of some Kuhnian premises, which entail some conclusions that perhaps Kuhn himself could not see with enough clarity, or are even at odds with what he thought. The directions for some future work on the study of the development of the sciences will be indicated
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
