Like The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?
Join aNobii to see if your friends read it, and discover similar books!
Book Description
Thomas S. Kuhn's classic book is now available with a new index.
"A landmark in intellectual history which has attracted attention far
beyond its own immediate field. . . . It is written with a combination
of depth and clarity that make it an almost unbroken series of
aphorisms. .Continue
4 Reviews
-
Mario Alemi said on Jan 17, 2012 about the Paperback edition | Add your feedback
-
Mario Alemi said on Oct 5, 2011 about the Paperback edition | Add your feedback
-
Ramsesoriginal said on Aug 20, 2009 about the Paperback edition | Add your feedback
-
Brian Hamilton said on May 8, 2007 about the Paperback edition | Add your feedback
Book Details
-
Rating:




(47)
- English Books
- Hardcover 226 Pages
- Edition: 3rd
- ISBN-10: 0226458075
- ISBN-13: 9780226458076
- Publisher: University Of Chicago Press
- Pub date: Dec 15, 1996
- Dimensions: 1355 mm x 903 mm x 129 mm Just how big is that?
- Also available as: Paperback
- In other languages: other languages
Groups with this in collection
Prices Change currency & sellers
| ISBN | Edition | List | Sale | Seller |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9780226458076 | Hardcover | $37.50 | $30.00 | bn.com |
| $37.50 | $34.62 | The Book Depository | ||
| Other editions → | ||||
| + 2 copies tradable: 2 in USA → | ||||

To better understand
I've added this book to topic/books-to-better-understand-societies because I think understanding the evolution of the "scientific thought" is key for the understanding of modern societies. Also because the book was (rightfully IMO) defined as one of the most influential books published after WWII. W ... (continue)
I've added this book to topic/books-to-better-understand-societies because I think understanding the evolution of the "scientific thought" is key for the understanding of modern societies. Also because the book was (rightfully IMO) defined as one of the most influential books published after WWII. What we nowadays think as "scientifically proven" and then true, can in fact be relativised and defined as "working well enough to be considered as true today". The phlogiston theory was neither wrong nor unscientific, and was good for the time as it could explain most known phenomena. Contrary to what Popper and followers think, any paradigma can (and has to) be adjusted whenever contradictions arise. Physicist did not decide to throw Newton in the bin after the Michelson–Morley experiment, or Boltzman out of the window because could not explain Edison effect. They tried to adjust the now-called-classical mechanics and statistical mechanics. After decades of failures, they had to accept Einstein interpretations.... physicists too are nothing more than pragmatic opportunist.
Is this helpful?