Kuhnian Revolution Research Articles

The Myth of the Kuhnian Revolution

The widespread adoption of the rhetoric of normal science, revolutionary science, paradigms, and exemplars by sociologists of science and sociologists in general suggests the strong influence that Thomas S. Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962, 1970) has had on sociological inquiry. But claims that Kuhn's work is antiMertonian, nonnormative, relativistic, an alternative to positivism and logical empiricism, and even compatible with Marxism are all part of the myth of the Kuhnian revolution in the sociology of science.1 The central dogma in the Kuhnian mythology is that Kuhn's paradigm is a significant, indeed a radical, alternative to Merton's. Some Mertonians (see Gaston, 1979, pp. 118-119) have been more perceptive about the Kuhnian mythology than have critics of Mertonian sociology of science. Gaston suggests (correctly I think) that Kuhn's reception is

No Kuhnian Revolutions in Economics

(1977). No Kuhnian Revolutions in Economics. Journal of Economic Issues: Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 1-20.

IQ, Heritability, and Human Nature

Scientific revolutions are no everyday affair. So it is of some importance that Fortune (Alexander, 1972) and several other major magazines have recently proclaimed that we are in the midst of a major Kuhnian revolution in the social sciences, one that has significant implications for social policy. According to these magazines, ‘environmentalist’ theories, which assume that equalization of human environments and opportunities will increase equality of achievement between individuals, groups, and races, are in ‘crisis'. The crisis exists because the egalitarian reform programs of the 1960's, which relied on such theories and thus constituted tests of them, failed to equalize achievement. In the face of this crisis, Fortune suggests, scientists are welcoming evidence from the study of ducks, baboons, and humans which points to “a basic intractability in human nature, a resistance to being guided and molded for improving society” (Alexander, 1972, p. 132).