Abstract
Historians and philosophers of science have usually followed Kuhn in his appraisal of Lyell's contribution to geology as a major scientific revolution. Nevertheless a detailed analysis of the historical evidence rather support a different view: Lyell's work did not establish any paradigm to be unanimously accepted by his colleagues. Thus Kuhn's model of scientific change does not authorize us to speak of a Lyellian revolution in geology. On the contrary such an interpretation is a recent historiographic myth, originated with Gillispie's Genesis and Geology and promptly prevailing as a result of Kuhn's highly influential The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
