Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Get access
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
  • Cited by 135
  • Cited by
    This chapter has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by CrossRef.

    Dimitrakos, Thodoris 2018. Scientific Mind and Objective World: Thomas Kuhn Between Naturalism and Apriorism. Erkenntnis,

    Swann, Christian Piggott, David Schweickle, Matthew and Vella, Stewart A. 2018. A Review of Scientific Progress in Flow in Sport and Exercise: Normal Science, Crisis, and a Progressive Shift. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, Vol. 30, Issue. 3, p. 249.

    Holtz, Peter and Odağ, Özen 2018. Popper was not a Positivist: Why Critical Rationalism Could be an Epistemology for Qualitative as well as Quantitative Social Scientific Research. Qualitative Research in Psychology, p. 1.

    Rowbottom, Darrell P. 2017. Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. p. 1131.

    Feteris, Eveline T. 2017. Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. Vol. 1, Issue. , p. 155.

    de Oliveira Mendonça, André Luís and Reis, Verusca Moss Simões dos 2017. The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social Theory. p. 1.

    Kožnjak, Boris 2017. Kuhn Meets Maslow: The Psychology Behind Scientific Revolutions. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, Vol. 48, Issue. 2, p. 257.

    Blunt, Peter Mamundzay, Farid and Nasary, Muqtader 2017. The long and the short of policy pantomime in Afghanistan. Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 17, Issue. 1, p. 67.

    Patel, Taran 2017. Multiparadigmatic Studies of Culture: Needs, Challenges, and Recommendations for Management Scholars. European Management Review, Vol. 14, Issue. 1, p. 83.

    Ewoldsen, David R. 2017. The International Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods. p. 1.

    Odenstedt, Anders 2017. Gadamer on Tradition - Historical Context and the Limits of Reflection. Vol. 90, Issue. , p. 129.

    Battard, Nicolas Donnelly, Paul F. and Mangematin, Vincent 2017. Organizational Responses to Institutional Pressures: Reconfiguration of Spaces in Nanosciences and Nanotechnologies. Organization Studies, Vol. 38, Issue. 11, p. 1529.

    Holtz, Peter and Monnerjahn, Peter 2017. Falsificationism is not just ‘potential’ falsifiability, but requires ‘actual’ falsification: Social psychology, critical rationalism, and progress in science. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, Vol. 47, Issue. 3, p. 348.

    Usturali, Adil 2017. Religion in Habermas’s Two-Track Political Theory. The European Legacy, Vol. 22, Issue. 5, p. 566.

    Spoelstra, Sverre Butler, Nick and Delaney, Helen 2016. Never let an academic crisis go to waste: Leadership Studies in the wake of journal retractions. Leadership, Vol. 12, Issue. 4, p. 383.

    Rowbottom, Darrell P. 2016. Encyclopedia of Educational Philosophy and Theory. p. 1.

    Blunt, Peter and Khamoosh, Saeed 2016. Vexatious voice: The politics of downward accountability and subnational governance reform in Afghanistan. Progress in Development Studies, Vol. 16, Issue. 1, p. 81.

    Fry, Michael 2016. Dissolution of hypotheses in biochemistry: three case studies. History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, Vol. 38, Issue. 4,

    Bogacheva, Nataliya V. 2016. Entertainment Computing and Serious Games. Vol. 9970, Issue. , p. 284.

    Young, Gerald 2016. Unifying Causality and Psychology. p. 857.

    ×
  • Print publication year: 1970
  • Online publication date: August 2014

Normal Science and its Dangers

Summary

Professor Kuhn's criticism of my views about science is the most interesting one I have so far come across. There are, admittedly, some points, more or less important, where he misunderstands me or misinterprets me. For example, Kuhn quotes with disapproval a passage from the beginning of the first chapter of my book, The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Now I should like to quote a passage overlooked by Kuhn, from the Preface to the First Edition. (In the first edition the passage stood immediately before the passage quoted by Kuhn; later I inserted the Preface to the English Edition between these two passages.) While the brief passage quoted by Kuhn may, out of context, sound as if I had been quite unaware of the fact, stressed by Kuhn, that scientists necessarily develop their ideas within a definite theoretical framework, its immediate predecessor of 1934 almost sounds like an anticipation of this central point of Kuhn's.

After two mottos taken from Schlick and from Kant, my book begins with the following words: ‘A scientist engaged in a piece of research, say in physics, can attack his problem straight away. He can go at once to the heart of the matter: that is, to the heart of an organized structure. For a structure of scientific doctrines is already in existence; and with it, a generally accepted problem-situation. This is why he may leave it to others to fit his contribution into the framework of scientific knowledge.’

Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge
  • Online ISBN: 9781139171434
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139171434
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×